ΕΝ 


Ἷ»» 


$B 51 715 


Sree Ke 
= 


oro 


τίν 


“ INDUERE CHRISTUM” 


WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WORKS OF 


2546 δα ν 4b eee wee 
Sitti ti ΤΟΣ tie et 


Στ ΤΟΣ 


ἦς 917. JOHN Curysostom 


DISSERTATION 
Submitted to the Faculty of the Sacred Sciences at the Catholic vi 
University of America in Partial Fulfilment of the x 
Requirements for the Doctorate in Theology 


: BY Ne 
THe REVEREND LEo JosEPH/OHLEYER, O.F. M., S.T. L. aa 


OF THE PROVINCE OF THE SACRED HEART ? ve ee 
: St. Louis, Missouri ᾿ 


| 
CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
WASHINGTON, ἢ. C. 


ee do] 


EXCHANGE 


ἣν Ὁ 7 
boa baton 


Peeing 


THE PAULINE FORMULA 
‘ INDUERE CHRISTUM © 


WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WORKS OF 


ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM 


DISSERTATION 


Submitted to the Faculty of the Sacred Sciences at the Catholic 
University of America in Partial Fulfilment of the 
Requirements for the Doctorate in Theology 


BY 
THE REVEREND LEo JOSEPH OHLEYER, O. F. M., S.T. L. 
OF THE PROVINCE OF THE SACRED HEART 
St. Louis, Missouri 


CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
WASHINGTON, D. C, 


192] 


Nihil obstat, 
Faustinus Hack, O.F.M. 


Censor deputatis. 


Imprimi permittitur, 
Samuel Macke, O.F.M. 
Minister Provincialis. 


Nihil obstat, 
Ῥ, L. Biermann 
Censor deputatus. 


Imprimatur, 
Georgius Gulielmus Mundelein 
‘Archiepiscopus Chicagiensis., 


my 
oh | 
¢ 

ol) 
ζῶ 
ὧτ 


ΞΧΟΜΔΑΝΘΩΝ 


UNIVERSITAS CATHOLICA AMERICAE 


WASHINGTON, ἢ, C. 


S. FACULTAS THEOLOGICA, 1920-1921 


No. 17 


PREFACE 


St. Paul, as is well known, originated a number of typical 
phrases, aptly styled formulas, by which to express concisely and 
comprehensively the great truths of the Christian religion. These 
set forms of speech occur most frequently in connection with the 
Apostle’s Christological teachings. Some of the Pauline formulas 
have received exhaustive treatment at the hands of scholars of 
note. Deissmann’s study Ἔν Χριστῷ Ἰγσοῦ and Heitmiuller’s work 
Im Namen Jesu are only two of many instances. One of the 
most striking and important of these formulas, which has not yet 
found a solution, is “Induere Christum.” The present treatise is 
an attempt at a solution. 


The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness and to 
express his sincere gratitude to the Rev. Dr. Heinrich Schumacher, 
Professor of New Testament Exegesis at the Catholic University, 
with whose aid and under whose direction this monograph has 
been written. Acknowledgments are due also to the Rev. Ferdi- 
nand Gruen, O. F. M., for his services in revising the manuscript 
and preparing it for the press. 
Leo J. OHLEYER, O. F. M. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 
PHRVORHCHON iii νος Ma Pane τής ΙΕ ere Lau MeN 7 
CHAPTER 

I. History of the Interpretation of ‘“Induere.Christum” in 
the Middle Ages and in Modern Times............. 3 

II. Interpretation of “Induere Christum” according to St. 
WOME RCL YV SOS pay hic ode a eae eS Raabe oe 33 

III. Historico-Literary Investigation of (Ἐν) δύειν- { Ἐν) δύ- 
νον το νύν cd τον ἐν μα νυ μον ἢ ον See μὰν 53 

IV. Application of the Results to Rom. XIII, 14 and Gal. 
τ se ered gin ia ae ace Ie SUPE NTE) Denne @ UAE MA aw 98 

Corollary. Confirmation of the Results by the Meaning of 
the Formula Βαπτίζειν εἷς τὸ ὄνομα Ingo. νυ νοις εὐ ees IOI 


BIDHOGTADAY Ὁ 00 ἑὴν κνυε ν rice yess ἀρεῖ ἡ νά ry ew rae 103 


INTRODUCTION 


The much disputed expression “induere Christum”’ is one of 
the most important and interesting of the N. T. formulas. It 
receives its chief importance from its connection with Baptism and 
regeneration. This phrase was chosen by St. Paul (Gal. III, 27) 
to express the grand truth of man’s palingenesis, which is the 
incomparable and transcendent realization of the cherished hopes 
and ardent cravings of the ancient peoples, Jewish and Gentile, for 
a σωτηρία from the slavery of sin and satan and for a renewal of 
themselves and a closer union with God. Again, “induere 
Christum” is used by St. Paul without any reference to Baptism, 
in an ethical sense. In Rom. XIII, 14, is contained an epitome of 
the principles of moral perfection. It is evident from these con- 
texts alone, which concern the most vital truths of Christianity, 
that our formula presents a paramount and pivotal problem of 
N. T. exegesis. SURO A bated 

But this phrase has received an astounding variety of inter- 
pretations ; and, what is worse, as time proceeds, the views con- 
cerning the meaning of the expression become more and more 
divergent and confusing, culminating in the findings of the com- 
parative study of religions. Both the extraordinary importance 
of the words and the utter confusion concerning their meaning, 
therefore, recommend this famous N. T. formula to a special 
study and a thorough investigation. 


eo 


a 


Bi τ ΕἾΜ. 
1 & s re 


CHAPTER I 


HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF “INDUERE 
CHRISTUM” IN THE MIDDLE AGES 
AND IN MODERN TIMES _ 


For the investigation of the Pauline formula “induere 
Christum” a history of its interpretation in the Middle Ages and 
in modern times will be of great advantage and importance. Such 
a historical review will not only clearly set forth the problem 
involved and the status of opinion bearing on it, but also suggest 
methods of arriving at a correct solution. Since the number of 
commentaries on Rom. XIII, 14, and Gal. III, 27, is very great, 
and since many interpreters give identical explanations, it is both 
impossible and unnecessary to quote or to mention them all. We 
shall cite as many authors as is necessary to obtain a comprehen- 
sive view of the state of the question. For the sake of clearness 
and brevity we shall group them in classes, according to their 
explanations of the origin of the Pauline formula. 


I. “INDUERE CHRISTUM”: A METAPHOR DERIVED FROM THE IDEA 
OF PUTTING ON A GARMENT 


Exegetes are quite generally agreed that the phrase “induere 
Christum” is to be taken, not in a literal, but in a figurative sense ; 
and that it stands in some relation to the idea of putting on a 
garment. Some commentators, who think that the metaphor is 
immediately derived from the expression “induere vestem” 
(ἐνδύεσθαι ἱμάτιον), inquire no further into its origin, but base their 
interpretation of Gal. III, 27, and Rom. XIII, 14, solely on the 
analogies they find by considering Christ as our garment. Opin- 
ions vary, however, as to the fundamental idea contained in this 
comparison. 


1. Unton.—To put on Christ as a garment, according to some 
authors, means to enter into intimate union with Him. Beet ex- 


4 


Fe Slains the ground af this analogy when he says that “clothes are 
something distinct from us; which, when put on, become almost 

a part of ourselves.” eplaae this explanation to Rom. XIII, 
14, he says God presents to us the image of His Son and “bids us 
enter into a union with Him so close that Christ becomes the 
element in which we live and move.”? For similar reasons, Farrar 
describes Christ “as a close-fitting robe” to be put on by “close 
spiritual communion.”? 


2. IMITATION.—Shook remarks, in reference to Rom. XIII, 
14, that the putting on of Christ as a garment implies an intimate 
spiritual relation with Him, which is effected “by shaping our 
character by his,” or by imbibing “Christ’s spirit to the extent 
that the ‘ego’ is completely covered up, as far as possible.”* Ac- 
cording to Horace Bushnell, the ground of the comparison consists 
in this, that “dress relates to the form or figure of the body, 
character to the form or figure of the soul”; that, in fact, char- 
acter “is the dress of the soul.” This similarity in relations, 
he asserts, is the reason why character is so often represented in 
Holy Scripture as the dress of the soul. Since “character is the 
soul’s dress, and dress analogical to character,” he concludes 
that “whatever has power to produce a character when received 
is represented as a dress to be put on.” In this manner, he con- 
tinues, Paul regards Christ as “the soul’s new dress” or “new 
character” when he exhorts the Romans to put Him on. “Christ,” 
he explains, “15 to be a complete wardrobe for us himself, and that 
by simply receiving his person we are to have the holy texture of 
his life upon us, and live in the unfolding of his character.’”* 


3. PROFESSION ΟΕ DiscIPLEsHIP.—The phrase “induere Chris- 
tum” in Gal. III, 27, where it occurs in connection with Baptism, 
is interpreted by Matthew Henry to mean to “put on his livery” 
and declare ourselves “to be his servants and disciples.” By put- 
ting on Christ in Baptism, he adds, “we profess our discipleship 
to him and are obliged to behave ourselves as his faithful serv- 
ants.”° Already in the middle of the sixteenth century, Musculus 
interpreted the words “Christum induistis,” in Gal. III, 27, to 
mean to be dedicated and consecrated to Christ. After stating 

1Comm. on Rom., 

2 Life and Work oF ΚΗ Paul, 11,.263. 

8 Comm. and Lex. on N. T., 325. 


+ Bible Readers’ Comm., II, 265. 
’ Exposition of O. and N. 7: ix, 301. 


5 


that “induimini Christum,” in Rom. XIII, 14, expresses an exhor- 
tation to “vivere, ambulare ac conversare secundum spiritum et 
vitam Christi,” he adds that, in Gal. III, 27, St. Paul reminds the 
Galatians that, when they were baptized, they put on not Moses 
but Christ—“non Mosi, sed Christo esse initiatos ac consecratos: 
ideoque vivendum ipsis esse non sub paedagogia Mosis sed sub 
gratia, spiritu, fide ac professione Christi.” He further says that, 
like Moses, Christ has a distinctive garb, which His followers must 
wear. The robe of Moses is the Law; the garment of Christ is 
especially His grace, His justice, and His spirit. He concludes 
with the remark that the baptized person puts on Christ “dum in 
gratiam illius, justitiam et praerogativam inseritur, ac per spiritum 
illius regeneratur.””® 


4. COVERING AND ProTEcTion.—The analogy between Christ 
and a garment that is put on, according to some authors, implies 
the idea that Christ is our covering and protection. Guyse says 
that the baptized “are, as it were, all covered with Christ, as a 
man is covered with his garments.”’ He gives the same interpre- 
tation of Rom. XIII, 14: “See that ye be all over covered with 
Christ, as with a garment, and be found in him.”* According to 
Locke, Christ so covers the Christians that “to God now looking 
upon them there appears nothing but Christ.”® Already Calvin 
had said that Paul by the “metaphor of a garment” wished to 
express the close union of the faithful with Christ, so that “in the 
presence of God, they bear the name and character of Christ, and 
are viewed in him rather than in themselves.”?? Pool says, in ref- 
erence to Rom. XIII, 14, that it is “Christ and his righteousness 
only that can cover us (as a garment doth our nakedness) in the 
sight of God.”"* According to Hofmann, the command to put on 
Christ was given in contrast to the moral nakedness of the natural 
man, “im Gegensatze gegen die sittliche Blosse des natiirlichen 
Menschen ;”!* whereas long before him St. Bruno had seen in 
the words of Paul a reference to the naked state of man’s soul in 
consequence of original and personal sin. He observes, relatively 


ὁ Comm. ad Gal. et Eph., 125-126. 

7 Practical Expositor, II, 335. 

8 Op. cit., III, 541. 

9 Quoted from Belsham, Ep. of Paul, III, 72. The original could not 
be obtained. 

10 Comm. on Gal, and Eph., 110, 

11 Annotations on H. Bible, 520. 

12 Heilige Schrift N. T., ΠῚ, 547. 


to Gal. III, 27, that man, who by sin became naked and suffered 
want and ignominy, puts on Christ “et ad tegendam nuditatem 
suam et ad gloriam.”** More clearly does he refer to Adam’s sin 
when he interprets St. Paul’s exhortation to the Romans as a 
command to clothe their nakedness with the faith of Christ and 
the other virtues that follow on faith: “Homo, enim, propter 
peccatum de paradiso nudus ejectus est; sed nuditas ista velari 
debet ornamento fidei caeterarumque virtutum.”™* 

Guyse and Macknight stress the point that Christ covers us 
completely. Guyse, as we have observed, remarks that we are, 
“as it were, all covered with Christ, as a man is with his gar- 
ment.”?> Macknight asserts that “to put on as a garment this 
or that quality . . . signifies to acquire great plenty of the thing 
said to be put on.”"* But long before these men, Ven. Herveus 
explained St. Paul’s exhortation “Christum induimini” as mean- 
ing: “Formam Christi sumite vestem, ut habitus et forma illius 
undique fulgeat, et repraesentetur in nobis.’’”’ 

The idea of covering suggests, if it does not necessarily in- 
clude, that of protection. In fact, both ideas may be harmonized 
in so far as this covering is at the same time decorative and pro- 
tective. Walafridus Strabo,'* Peter Lombard,*® and other medie- 
val writers, in explanation of Gal. III, 27, quote the words: 
“Christum induistis, id est, conformes ei facti estis, quod est vobis 
honor, et contra aestus protectio.” ) 

The idea of covering and protection is clearly set forth by St. 
Thomas: “Qui induitur aliqua veste, protegitur ac contegitur ea, 
et apparet sub colore vestis colore proprio occultato. Eodem modo 
et qui induit Christum, protegitur et contegitur a Christo Jesu, 
contra impugnationes et aestus, et in eo nihil aliud apparet nisi 
qui Christi sunt.”?° 


Corol. 1. “Induere Christum” means to put on Christ as our 
armor.—Beet”* regards the words “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” 
in Rom, XIII, 14, as “parallel” with the expression contained in 
v. 12: “Let us . . . put on the armour of light.” To the exposi- 


13 Opera, II, 217. 

14 Op. cit., II, 73. 

a voy Sy, ον 335. 

16 Apostolic Ep., 303. 

17 Migne, P. L., 181, 782 A. 

18 Migne, P. L., 114, 577 Ὁ. 

19 Migne, P. L., 192, 133 A. 

20 In Omnes Pauli Ep. Comm., 142 D. 
21 Comm. on Rom., 347. 


7 


tion of Rom. XIII, 14, given above, he adds: “Since union with 
Christ makes us safe, and gives us power to do God’s work, to 
put on Christ is to arm ourselves for the fight.” According to 
Whedon, St. Paul exhorts the Romans to let Christ “be buckled 
on” to their “body and soul as an armour,” and to put Him on 
“instead of wanton attire.”?? Moule explains how we are to put 
on Christ as our armor: “It is by the ‘committal of the keeping 
of our souls unto Him,’ not vaguely, but definitely and with pur- 
pose, in view of each and every temptation.”** 

Zahn*™ objects that, although St. Paul’s term reminds us of 
his words in v. 12, yet “wird . . . Christus schwerlich dadurch 
als die Waffenriistung der Christen bezeichnet sein sollen.” The 
foregoing explanation, he continues, could not be applied to Gal. 
III, 27, and Eph. IV, 24, and Col. III, 10. Moreover, the passages, 
in which the Apostle describes the armor of the Christians, mili- 
tate against the proposed interpretation. On the contrary, he 
says, the picture of the “notwendigen Ristung fiir den Kampf” 
is superseded by that of the “wohlanstandigen Wandels.” 


Corol. 2. Christ as the “covering” for our sins—The inter- 
pretation that Christ is as a garment covering us, has, on the other 
hand, been advanced as a proof of the Protestant doctrine con- 
cerning the outward imputation of the justice of Christ. “Induere 
Christum,” according to Melanchton, means, in the first place, 
that the sinner with the arm of faith seizes Christ as his Savior 
and acknowledges Him as the covering whereby we are shielded 
against God’s wrath.”> In Baptism, he says, in another place, we 
have put on Christ “scl. imputata nobis ipsius justicia.”’*® 

Catholics maintain that the metaphor gives no countenance to 
this theory. Belsham calls it a “notion than which nothing can 
be more foreign to the Apostle’s mind, or more inconsistent with 
reason and with Christianity.”?? Cornely also warns against this 
interpretation. After quoting the words of St. Thomas given 
above, he adds that we must be careful not to understand St. 
Paul’s figure “de mera quadam apparentia vel externa imputa- 
tione ; per baptismum quippe,” he continues, “homo regeneratur,” 
since through Baptism the new man is born, the Christian be- 


22 Comm. on N. T., III, 384. 
23 Eb. to the Rom., 368. 

24 Brief an d. Rom., 567. 

25 Opera, XV, 719. 

26 Op. cit., XV, 1024. 

27 Ep. of Paul, 111, 72. 


8 


comes a member of the mystical body of Christ, is informed by 
His Spirit and is perfectly conformed to Him.** 

Burkitt contends the idea of a garment does not adequately 
express the change wrought in us when we “put on Christ” in 
Baptism. “To put on Christ,” he observes, “is not as to put on 
a Suit of Cloaths fitted to the body, but as Metal cast into a Mould, 
receiving the figure from it.’’* Cornely and Schaefer, however, 
reject this view. According to Schaefer, clothes give a new form 
and at the same time fit the figure of the person who wears them. 
“So,” he continues, “besteht der Getaufte in seiner Personlichkeit 
fort, tritt aber mit dem lebendigen Christus in eine mystische 
Vereinigung ein.”*° 

A decidedly better way to find the solution of our problem, is 
to seek, as many commentators have done, to establish the philo- 
logical origin of St. Paul’s formula. 


II. THe ΜΕΤΑΡΗΟΚ “INDUERE CHRISTUM,” A HEBREW ORIGINAL 


Vorstius*? and others insist that St. Paul borrowed this figure 
from the Hebrew tongue. ᾿Ἐνδύεσθαι, they maintain, is the equiva- 
lent forw25, which, in its literal sense, means “to clothe.” Stock®? 
asserts that Vorstius has clearly proved that the metaphorical sig- 
nification was given to ἐνδύεσθαι by the N. T. writers after the 
example of the Hebrew equivalent. Stephanus,** Cornelius a 
Lapide,** and Alexander Natalis*® simply regard this phrase as a 
Hebraism. Cremer remarks “die Prof.-Grac. kennt diese Aus- 
drucksweise nicht ausser dem homerischen ἐπιέννυναι ἄλκην, ἀναιδείην, 
Il. 20, 381; 1, 149. Sie ist wesentlich semitisch.”** Gesenius*’ 
adduces various instances of the metaphorical use of 52 and the 
corresponding words in Aramaic and Syriac; while Schoettgen,** 
to buttress his contention that St. Paul, in Rom. XIII, 14, is 
speaking “de anima sane vestienda,” quotes several cabalistic in- 
terpretations of rabbis, in which they speak of ee man’s soul. 


28 Comm. in II Cor. et Gal., 517. 
29 Expository Notes on N. i ip (no pages marked). 
30 Briefe an d. Thess. u. an d. Gal., 302. 
᾿ 81 De Hebraismis N. T., 126. 
32 Clavis N. T., 336. 
88 N. T. Graec. et Lat., 215. 
84 Comm. in Scrip. S., XVIII, 226. 
35 Comm. in Omnes Ep., 205. 
86 Bib.-theol. Woérterbuch d. neut. Gric., 397. 
87 Thesaurus Phil. Crit., Il, 742. 
38 Horae Heb. et Tal., 571. 


9 


Yet when the authors, who think “induere Christum” is a 
metaphorical locution borrowed from the Hebrew language, wish 
to determine the precise meaning of the original Hebrew and the 
fundamental idea underlying the metaphor, they differ not a little. 


1. “INDUERE”’ == Union.—Borger,*® who is quoted also by 
Bloomfield,*® opines that the Hebrew equivalent for “induere” is 
used “de quavis conjunctione arctiore.” Accordingly, he inter- 
prets Gal. III, 27, as meaning “arctissimo cum Christo vinculo 
estis conjuncti.” De Wette*' regards the phrase as a “Bild der 
innigsten Geistesgemeinschaft mit Chr.” He adds that the word 
ΟΣ was used ina similar sense by the Hebrews. 


2. “INDUERE” --- ABUNDANCE.—According to Tholuck,*? “225 
in a figurative sense, means to be wholly filled with anything.” 
Accordingly, he states that Paul in Rom. XIII, 14, “exhorts to a 
close union of the soul with Christ.” Stuart, after interpreting 
“induimini Christum,” in Rom. XIII, 14, in the sense of “imitate,” 
adds that “perhaps it here means like the Hebrew wa, to be 
filled with, and so the idea is: Be filled with a Christian spirit, 
abound in it; ‘let Christ dwell in you richly.’ "45 


3. “INDUERE” == ApopTion.—Thus Ellicott explains ἐνδύεσθαι, 
which is used in the LX X for the Hebrew wa}. In this sense, too, 
he interprets Gal. III, 27. “The Christian, at his baptism, ‘took 
to himself’ Christ, and sought to grow into full unison and union 
with Him.” 


4. “INDUERE”’ == ASSUMPTION OF QUALITIES.—Preuschen*® re- 
marks that in the N. T. ἐνδύεσθαι, like a5, is very frequently used 
metaphorically to signify the “Annahme v. Eigenschaften, Tugen- 
den, Gesinnungen u.a.” “Induere Christum” he takes to mean 
“sich d. Geist Chr. wie e. Gewand umlegen.” In a similar way, 

Wieseler*® notes that the figure of a garment is frequently used 
in the O. T. in regard to “Eigenschaften, Zustanden und Stimmun- 
gen der Seele.” In the same meaning, he says, is the phrase “to 

89 Interpr. Ep. ad Gal., 246. 

40 Recensio synop. Annot. Sacr., VII, 406. 

41 Erklarung d. Briefes an d. Rém., 177. 

42 Exposition of Rom., 399. 

48 Comm. on Rom., 406. 

4Ν T. Comm., II, 448. 


*5 Griech.-deutsch. Handworterbuch z. N. T., 387-388. 
46 Comm. tiber d. Gal., 318-320. 


10 


put on a person” used in the N. T., by which “nicht zunachst der 
aussere habitus und Wandel, sondern vor Allem die bis in den 
Grund gehende Umbildung und Verahnlichung gemeint wird.” 
Accordingly, he explains Gal. III, 27, as meaning “sein Bild,” 1.e., 
that of the heavenly and perfect man, “in sich aufnehmen und in 
sich ausgestalten.” With this explanation, he contends, also Rom. 
XIII, 14, harmonizes very well. Here the Roman Christians are 
exhorted to put on the Lord Jesus, 7.e., “nach dem V. 13 erwahnten 
Gegensatze, des Herrn Jesu Bild durch einen sittlichen Wandel in 
sich auszugestalten.” 


5. “INDUERE”’ == ACQUISITION OF ANYTHING whereby we are 
honored or dishonored.—Stephanus*’? remarks that 1529 is used 
“in re quavis cujus accessione vel ornamur . .. vel dedecora- 
mur.” He adds, however, that the “peculiaris energia” of the 
Pauline formula in Gal. III, 27, seems to be “quod in possessionem 
Christi mittamur, ita ut ille sit in nobis et nos in illo.” By way of 
example he refers to Judg. VI, 34, where we read: “Spiritus 
autem Domini induit Gedeon.” In Rom. XIII, 14, Stephanus 
thinks that the Apostle refers to the “fructus sanctificationis . . . 
a Christi Spiritu exorientes,” with which we are to adorn our- 
selves. 


A more exhaustive exposition of the figurative meaning of 
Ὁ is given by Cornelius a Lapide. He declares that the Hebrew 
word 825 is used to express that some one is clothed with “pudore, 
decore, salute, justitia, maledictione, id est, his repleri, copiose 
decorari, vel dedecorari.” “Indumentum,” therefore, signifies 
“copiam undique circumfusam.’”** In Canon XXXVII, he ex- 
plains the nature of the metaphor. At times, he says, St. Paul 
mentions the “rem . .. pro adjacentibus rei.” Thus, for in- 
stance, Christ is called faith, grace, and Baptism. Among other 
examples that serve to illustrate this way of speaking, he adduces 
that of “induere Christum.” By this figure, St. Paul means to 
say that the baptized put on “Christi virtutes, spiritum et mores.”’*° 
In agreement with the foregoing explanation of the figurative 
meaning of “induere” in general and of “induere Christum” in 
particular is his interpretation of Gal. III, 27, and Rom. XIII, 14. 
The Galatians, he ee have received in Baptism the “copiam 

47 N. T. Graec. et Lat., 


48 Comm. in Scrip. S., ‘ev, 226. 
49 Op. cit., XVIII, 29. 


11 
Christi gratiam, dona, virtutes,” which surround and cover them 
like a garment, so that they become “consortes divinae naturae et 
filiationis, ac consequenter divinarum operationum,” by which 
Christ should shine in them.®® And the exhortation in Rom. XIII, 
14, means: Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, so that “Jesu spiritus, 
gratia, virtus, vita, in vobis eluceant.”*? 


6. “INDUERE” ExprESsES CoNDITION IN CoNTRAST TO CoNn- 
puct.—Cremer®? contends that, whenever Paul uses ἐνδύεσθαι meta- 
phorically, a condition (Zustand) is meant and not conduct (Ver- 
halten). St. Paul’s exhortation to put on Christ “lauft nicht auf ein 
Verhalten wie das Verhalten Jesu hinaus,” and his statement in Gal. 
III, 27, “besagt nichts weniger, als dass die Getauften erscheinen, 
als waren sie Christus oder Abbilder Christi.” Here Christ is to 
be considered “nicht nach seinem Verhalten, seinem Wandel, 
sondern nach seiner Heilsbedeutung.” After observing that the 
words Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε in Gal. III, 27, must be interpreted in 
accordance with the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ εἶναι, he continues: “Wer 
getauft ist, hat Christum angezogen, ist des Heiles teilhaftig.” If 
Rom. XIII, 14, is to be interpreted consistently with the fore- 
going explanation, it must mean that the Romans “durch den 
glaubigen Zusammenschluss mit dem Herrn des Heiles sich in den 
Stand setzen sollen,” to fulfill the exhortation contained in the 
second half of the same verse. 


III. THe MetarHor “INDUERE CHRISTUM” A GREEK ORIGINAL 


Another class of commentators hold that the Apostle’s figure is 
Greek in origin. They point to the fact that the Greek writers use 
ἐνδύεσθαι with a personal object, which is exactly the use St. Paul 
makes of the word. Commentators conclude, therefore, that the 
inspired writer was not the originator of this figurative locution 
in Greek, and that he did not borrow the expression from the 
Hebrew, but that he merely used a metaphor already in vogue 
among the Greeks. The opinions of exegetes, however, concern- 
ing the precise meaning of the current Greek phrase ἐνδύεσθαί τινα, 
and consequently of the Pauline formula ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν again 
vary greatly. The following list will give an idea of the obscurity 
and confusion concerning the fundamental concept contained in 
these figures of speech. 

59 Op. cit., XVIII, 547. 


51 Op. cit., XVIII, 226. 
52 Bib.-theol. Worterbuch d. neut. Griac., 378. 


12 


I. ΕΝΔΥΕΣΘΑΙ ΤΙΝΑ =IMITATION IN GENERAL.—Tholuck** 
ventures the opinion that ἐνδύεσθαί τινα “directly signifies, even in 
Greek, to imitate anyone” ; while Stuart** less boldly asserts that 
to imitate “is the usual sense” of the Greek figure. Olshausen®™ 
observes that “profane writers also use ἀποδύεσθαι and ἐνδύεσθαι 

. in the sense of fashioning one’s self unlike or like a person.” 
Evidently he speaks by way of illustration or confirmation of the 
meaning of “induere Christum” in Rom. XIII, 14. Stuart,5* on 
the other hand, is not certain whether “induere Christum” means 
“to imitate” or “to be filled with a Christian spirit”; whereas 
Tholuck,*’ as we remarked above, even thinks it is “more probable” 
that St. Paul used the figure after the Hebrew. 


2. ENAYES@AI TINA = EXTERNAL ImitTaTion.—According to 
Bloomfield,®* the examples of ἐνδύεσθαι and ἀποδύεσθαι, which have 
been cited by commentators in illustration of St. Paul’s formula, 
contain “no more than a slight allusion to conduct considered figur- 
atively as a dress.” The exhortation, “put ye on the Lord Jesus 
Christ” (Rom. XIII, 14) he, accordingly, interprets: “Take upon 
you his manners, follow his example.” Similarly Wieseler says 
that the expression ἐνδύεσθαί τινα, as used by profane writers, sig- 
nifies, “Jemand nachahmen, seinen habitus annehmen, aber mehr 
in ausserlicher, sinnfalliger Weise, ‘agere personam alicujus.’”’*® 
It must be observed that he does not regard this expression as the 
origin of St. Paul’s phrase. According to Zahn,® ἐνδύεσθαί τινα 
means “sich in die Rolle eines anderen hineindenken und darnach 
handeln, sich wie ein anderer geberden und darstellen.” He re- 
marks that St. Paul is wont to employ the verb ἐνδύεσθαι probably 
not without reference to this use of évdvecGai τινα, “aber doch mit 
lebendiger Vergegenwartigung der sinnlichen Anschauung, welche 
der bildliche Ausdruck bietet.” This explanation he applies 
to Gal. III, 27. Here, he says, St. Paul views Christ as a 
garment, “welches alle Getauften wie einen einzigen Korper .. . 
umhillt, oder, sofern sie als Individuen betrachtet werden, alle 
gleich gekleidet erscheinen lasst.”** Likewise, in his exposition of 

53 Exposition of Rom., 414. 

54 Comm. on Rom., 406. 

55 Bib. Comm. on Rom., 404. 

56 Op. cit., 406. 

57 Ob. cit., 414. 

58 Recensio synop. Annot. Sacr., VI, 161. 

59 Op. cit., 320. 

60 fa an d. Gal., 186. 


61 [δὲ 


18 


Rom. XIII, 14, he regards Christ as the garment which should 
cover the nakedness of the Christians, and in which they can 
appear before men and God.* 

D’Outrein asserts that the external imitation expressed by 
ἐνδύεσθαί τινα may be either apparent or real. In the theaters, he 
explains, the actors are said to put on the person whom they repre- 
sent. In consequence of this imitation in dress, action, and speech, 
the audience seem to hear and see the very person who is repre- 
sented. “Atque illud quidem fit simulanter,” he continues. ‘““Verum 
et judicis aliusve personam induere dicitur, qui vere judex est ipse, 
judiciumque exercet, sive scil. ipsius loco, sive vice alterius.”® 
Like D’Outrein, also, Kypke** and Rosenmiiller® say this expres- 
sion was used of stage players and means to “seek to imitate and 
represent the actions” of another. In the light of this explana- 
tion, they interpret Rom. XIII, 14: “Imitamini Christum, similes 
illi fieri studete.”** Concerning the interpretation of Gal. III, 27, 
however, they are at variance. Kypke®’ retains the same explana- 
tion as in Rom. XIII, 14, and interprets the Apostle’s words as 
expressing similarity to Christ. Rosenmiller, on the contrary, 
understands the Pauline formula, as it occurs in Gal. III, 27, in 
the sense of union. Whoever receives Baptism, he explains, “con- 
jungitur cum Christo, adipiscitur jura et commoda Christi 
sectatoribus propria.’”’® 


3. ENAYES@AI TINA=ImiTaTION oF MIND AND SENTI- 
MENTS.—So Wahl® says of ἐνδύεσθαί τινα, “i. e., indolem, mentem, 
sensum alicujus sumere.” By way of illustration he refers to Gal. 
III, 27, and Rom. XIII, 14. Also Preuschen” regards ἐνδύεσθαι 
in general (like iad) asa metaphor, which denotes the “Annahme 
v. Eigenschaften, Tugenden, Gesinnungen u.a.” D’Outrein™ ob- 
serves that the subject of the “induere” receives “‘similes affectus, 
virtutes sive vitia,” as the personal object, which is to be regarded 
as the exemplar of the former. He makes nu special application, 
however, of this explanation either to Gal. III, 27, or Rom. 
XIII, 14. 


82 Brief an d. Rom., 567. 
83 Spicilegium, 
84 Observ. Sacr., II, 186. 
65 Scholia in N. Tt; III, 750. 
96 Πα. 


10 Griech.-deutsch. ‘Hondaueiaiaas z. N. T., 387- 388. 
™ Ob. cit., 365. 


14 


4. ἘΝΔΥΕΣΘΑΙ TINA = INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL IMITATION. 
—Meyer,’? whom Lange’® cites in confirmation of his exposition 
of Rom. XIII, 14, remarks that also with the Greeks the expres- 
sion ἐνδύεσθαί τινα signifies “jemandes Sinnes-u. Handlungsweise 
annehmen.” Bern. Weiss** and Luthhardt’® give precisely the 
same explanation. According to these authors, however, ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν implies more than the current Greek phrase ἐνδύεσθαί τινα. 
It signifies not merely imitation but primarily union, by which 
imitation is effected ; or, as Meyer says with regard to Rom. XIII, 
14: “Vereiniget euch zur innigsten Lebensgemeinschaft mit 
Christo, so dass ihr ganz Christi Sinn und Leben in eurem Thun 
und Lassen darstellt.’”® Weiss’? adds that it is Christ himself, 
with whom we are united, who effects the “Annahme seiner Sinne 
und Handlungsweise.” Meyer had already remarked, in refer- 
ence to Melanchton, that it is the “praesens efficacia Christi . . ., 
was das Angezogenhaben Christi von der Annahme anderer Lehr- 
muster unterscheidet.’’* Melanchton’ himself said, in explana- 
tion of Rom. XIII, 14, that we put on Christ, in the first place, 
when we clothe ourselves and cover our sins with his merits as 
with a garment ; and in the second place, by the “efficax praesentia” 
of Christ, the Son of God. The Logos, he explains, is “praesens 
et efficax” by the “vox Evangelii,” manifesting the mercy of the 
Father. The Holy Ghost is infused into the hearts of the faithful, 
“ut laetentur in Deo.” By faith their hearts are conformed to the 
Logos, who again is the “imago Dei.” The effect of this process, 
as he says, is that we are made a “templum et domicilium Dei.” 

Thayer® also interprets both phrases as meaning “to become 
so possessed of the mind of Christ as in thought, feeling and 
action to resemble him and, as it were, reproduce the life he lived.” 
By way of illustration he refers to similar expressions of Greek 
and Roman writers. Barnes notes that the phrase to “put on a 
person” is often used by Greek authors, and means “to imbibe 
his principles ; to imitate his example ; to copy his spirit ; to become 
like him.’’* 

72 Brief an d. Rom., 483. 

73 Ep. to the Rom., 408. 

74 Paul. Briefe u. Hebrierbrief, 542. 

75 Brief an d. Rém., 424. 

76 Op. cit., 483. 

τ Op. cit., 542. 

78 Op. cit., 483. 

79 Opera, XV, 1023. 


80 Greek-Eng. Lex. of N. T., 214. 
81 Notes on Rom., 322. 


15 


5. ENAYES@AI TINA=ExprEssION For DISCIPLESHIP.— 
Schleusner®? attaches a twofold meaning to our figure. ᾿Ἐνδύω τινά, 
he says, is used either of one “qui aliquem doctorem sequitur, qui 
alterum imitatur eique similis fieri conatur,’ or of one, “qui 
arctissimis cum aliquo conjungitur vinculis.” Accordingly, re- 
ferring to Gal. III, 27, he says the baptized are united with Christ 
“arctissimis vinculis.” As is evident from the words quoted above, 
discipleship, according to Schleusner, implies imitation; and in 
this sense he understands Rom. XIII, 14: “Imitamini sensus et 
animum Domini nostri J. (. He cites Dion. Hal. as an authority 
for the use of ἐνδύεσθαί τινα in the sense of to imitate, and he adds 
that also in other writers the phrase “Platonem, Pythagoram 
induere” is used in the meaning of “fieri discipulum Pythagorae 
et Platonis, se conformare ad ejus exemplum.’** Similarly, 
Barnes,** commenting on Schleusner’s words, observes that the 
“Greek writers speak of putting on Plato, Socrates, etc.,” in the 
meaning of “to take them as instructors; to follow them as disci- 
ples.” Hence he understands the “induere Christum” in Rom. 
XIII, 14, as meaning “to take him as a pattern and guide, to imi- 
tate his example, to obey his precepts, to become like him.”’*®® 


6. ENAYES@AI TINA =INTIMATE UNION AND LIFE-FELLOW- 
sHip.—Ellicott** remarks that from the instances collected by 
Wetstein it is clear that ἐνδύεσθαί τινα is a “strong expression, de- 
noting the complete assumption of the nature etc. of another.” 
Ford,*’ in his exposition of Rom. XIII, 14, declares that St. Paul’s 
expression denotes “the most intimate spiritual union and appro- 
priation, such as is indicated by our baptism into Christ.” Elli- 
cott** himself interprets the “induere Christum” in Gal. III, 27, 
as implying a most intimate union with Christ,—‘‘we are brought 
εἷς μίαν συγγένειαν καὶ μίαν ἰδέαν (Chrys.) with him”; so that, as 
Calvin*® had said, before God we bear the name and the person 
of Christ, and “in Ipso magis quam nobismet Ipsis censeamus.” 
De Wette,°° as was noted above, understands the phrase ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν as a “Bild der innigsten Geistesgemeinschaft mit Chr.” ; 


82 Nov. Lex. Graeco-Lat. in N. T., I, 631. 
88 Ibid. 

δέ ee cit., 322. 

85 

86 peony on Gal., 80. 

87 Comm. on Rom., 

88 Od. cit., 89. 

89 Comm. on Gal. and Eph., 110. 

90 Erklirung d. Briefes an ‘d. Rom., 177. 


16 


while Philippi®’ calls it a “figure for entrance into most intimate 
union and life-fellowship with Him.” As examples of this use of 
ἐνδύεσθαι, both authors refer to the Hebrew word wa as well as 
to the Greek and Latin classics. 

The explanation of ἐνδύεσθαί τινα given by Borger®? and ap- 
proved by Bloomfield,®** is essentially the same as the foregoing. 
It means, according to these writers, “homine aliquo familiariter 
uti; familiaritatem contrahere cum aliquo.” Familiarity connotes 
union, and it is in this sense that they interpret the Pauline formula 
in Gal. III, 27. By Baptism, they say, we are united to Christ 
“arctissimo . . . vinculo.” 

Calmet** understands the phrase “indui aliquem” in the same 
sense; “nempe, res illius curare, unius esse sententiae, familiaiter 
uti.” According to him, the “induere Christum” in Rom. XIII, 14, 
means to love and follow Christ, and to show forth “divini hujus 
exemplaris effigiem in gestis ;”°* whereas the form in Gal. III, 27, 
signifies to be filled with Christ’s spirit, “ipsius spiritu perfusi,” 
to be enriched with his gifts and made beloved sons of God.*® 

Turner®* and Rendall®® give no general meaning of the phrase 
ἐνδύεσθαί τινα, but maintain that the precise sense in each instance 
must be determined by the context. Turner gives to “induere 
Christum” in Rom. XIII, 14, the meaning to “become assimilated 
to the character of Christ,” and to Gal. III, 27, to embrace “the 
religion of Christ.” 


IV. THe Metrapuor “INDUERE CHRISTUM” DERIVED FROM 
Various Civit or RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS 


In order to explain the precise meaning of the Pauline formula, 
some commentators follow a course quite different from the one 
described. Abstracting from the philological origin of “induere 
Christum,” they discover in the phrase a figure taken from the 
idea of putting on a garment, and maintain that it is used by St. 
Paul in reference to some incident or custom; but as to the nature 
of this fact or custom they are by no means agreed. The opinion 


91 Comm. on Rom., 315. 

92 Interpr. Ep. ad Gal., 246. 

98 Recensio synop. Annot. Sacr., 406. 
84 Comm. in N. T., Ill, 520. 

95 [bid. 

90 Op. cit., III, 835. 

87 Notes on Rom., 96. 

98 Fp. to the Gal., 11, 174. 

99 Op. cit., 96. 


17 


of exegetes on this point may be divided into three classes, ac- 
cording as they explain our metaphor by facts or customs that 
are Christian, Jewish, or pagan in origin. 


. “INDUERE CHRISTUM”’ DERIVED FROM CHRISTIAN CUSTOMS 
a) From the Garments of Baptism 


Taking their cue from the words: “For as many of you as 
have been baptized into Christ” (Gal. III, 27), some interpreters 
conclude that St. Paul derived his simile from the custom of put- 
ting on clothes—in later times new clothes—after Baptism. This 
view is held as certain by Usteri, Macknight, and Beyschlag. 
Usteri remarks that St. Paul applies this figure to “die das aussere 
Leben wie das Innere des Gemiithes umfassende Verahnlichung 
und Vereinigung mit Christo.”?°° Macknight simply adds that, in 
the Apostle’s phrase, Christ signifies “the temper and virtues of 
Christ.”*°* According to Beyschlag,’°* the practice of putting on 
the clothes—“perhaps in those days a new white baptismal robe” — 
suggested to Paul the idea of Baptism as the medium of our com- 
munion with Christ. 

It is of interest to note that J. B. Lightfoot?®* seems undecided 
as to the correctness of this opinion. On the one hand, he deems 
it “scarcely probable” that “the ceremonial of baptism had become 
so definitely fixed at this early date, that an allusion to the white 
garments of the baptized” would speak for itself. On the other 
hand, after noting that the metaphor is very common in the LXX, 
he adds that in the context of a passage of St. Justin,’°* which he 
regards as a “reminiscence of this passage of St. Paul,” “there is 
apparently an allusion to the baptismal robes.” 

Trollope?®® accords to this view only a mere probability ; while 
Ellicott,*°* although deeming it “very plausible,” rejects it. Other 
commentators are more positive in rejecting this explanation. 
They assert that the method of procedure was quite the opposite ; 
that the language of St. Paul in the course of time gave rise to 
the custom of putting on new or white garments after Baptism. 
Already Musculus’” advanced this view. According to him, the 


100 Comm. iiber d. Gal., 135. 
101 Apostolic Ep., Il, 270. 

102 N. T. Theol. ἮΙ, 236. 

103 Fb. to the Gal., 149-150. 
104 Migne, P. G., 6, 745 A. 

105 Comm. on N. T., II, 465. 
106 Comm. on Gal., 80. 

107 Comm. ad Gal. et Eph., 126. 


18 


early Christians, in order to express that by Baptism Christ is put 
on, clothed in a new and white garment those whom they baptized. 
Deyling,’°* who flourished in the beginning of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, shared the opinion of Musculus. The practice of putting on 
white garments after Baptism, and wearing them for eight days, 
he says, owes its origin to the Apostle’s words, and first came into 
vogue in the beginning of the third century. Hasaeus,’*° a con- 
temporary of Deyling, likewise rejects the explanation of the 
origin of the Pauline formula from the putting on of white gar- 
ments after Baptism on the ground that this custom was not in 
vogue in the time of St. Paul. Of the more modern exegetes, 
Sieffert-Meyer’’® declines to accept this opinion for the same 
reason as Hasaeus. He adduces the common use of the figure of 
speech and the absence of any hint in the context as further gen- 
eral reasons for rejecting this as well as any other allusion that 
might be attached to St. Paul’s words. Schaefer’? also deems 
the currency of this mode of expression a sufficient reason for 
rejecting “zu seiner Motivierung” all allusions to any customs, 
and he mentions especially the “Anlegen von Kleidern bei der 
Taufe.” 


Like Musculus and Deyling, Schaff'?? is of opinion that the 
“figure of putting on Christ as a new dress gave rise afterwards 
to the custom of wearing white baptismal garments” ; but he adds 
that there is “no trace that such a custom existed already in the 
Apostolic Church.” Rendall’?* thinks that “perhaps the language 
of the Apostle contributed to the spread of the ceremonial.” Yet 
he maintains that the “symbolism of white garments . . . differed 
materially” from the idea St. Paul wishes to express in Gal. ΠῚ, 
27. The white robes, he explains, “signified the cleansing effect 
of baptism”; whereas the Apostle, as the context shows, is speak- 
ing of .“enfranchisement and emancipation from control.” 


b) From the Water of Baptism 


Schmidt and Holzendorff apparently see in the phraseology of 
St. Paul in-Gal. III, 27, an allusion to the waters of Baptism, 
which, like a garment, entirely covered the neophyte. So, they 


108 Observat. Sacr., 326. 

109 De Baptizatis Christum indutis, 1009. 

110 Brief an d. Gall., 228. 

111 Erklarung d. zwei Briefe an d. Thess. u. an d. Gal., 302. 
112 Pop. Comm. on Ν. T.., 111, 323. 

113 Fp. to the Gal., II, 174. 


19 


say, those who are baptized are, as it were, “enveloped in Christ, 
so that they appear as the image of Christ, the Son of God.”*** 

In a somewhat different way, H. J. Holtzmann**® explains the 
“Christum induistis” in Gal. III, 27. According to his view, the 
immersion in Baptism represents “den Untergang des alten 
Fleischesmenschen,” the emersion “den Hervorgang eines neuen, 
eines Geistesmenschen” ; “der ganze Akt aber heisst ‘den Christus 
anziehen.’”’ 


2. “INDUERE CHRISTUM” DERIVED FROM JEWISH CUSTOMS 
a) From the Inauguration of the High Priest 


A second class of exegetes, especially of the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries, think that St. Paul derived his image from 
Jewish customs. Deyling,** who, according to Wolf,!* is the 
most celebrated of these authors, seeks to explain the Pauline form 
of speech by referring to the solemn inauguration of the High 
Priest, which at the time of the second temple was performed by 
the vesting with the priestly robes, and which was called “multi- 
plicatio vestium.” At the time of the first temple, he explains, 
according to the express law of God (Ex. XXIX, 7), the High 
Priest was anointed before being admitted to his sacred functions. 
But at the time of the second temple, because, as the Talmudists 
say, the oil of unction, or holy oil, was no longer to be had, or 
because the Jews no longer attributed any sanctifying power to it, 
the priests were consecrated and initiated by the investment with 
eight garments. Consequently, to put on the robes of the High 
Priest was tantamount to being made High Priest. In this cere- 
mony Deyling finds the key for the explanation of the “induere 
Christum” used by St. Paul. For in Baptism the Holy Ghost, 
like the holy oil, “is poured forth abundantly” on the Christians, 
and they are clothed with Christ, “hoc est justitia, merito, et 
sanctitate ejus, tamquam vestibus sanctissimis.” Thereby they 
are inducted into the priestly office and consecrated priests of the 
New Law. 

The part of the High Priest’s accoutrement, which is most 
pertinent to our subject, he says, is the ὙΦ, the plate of gold on 


which were engraven the words") Wp —“Sanctitas Jeho- 


114 Comm. on N. T., 305. 

115 Lehrbuch d. neut. Theol., II, 197. 
116 Observ. Sacr., 322 ff. 

117 Curae Phil. et Crit., III, 738. 


20 


vae.” This plate, which like a fillet encircled his forehead, was to 
signify that the High Priest was “ipso Jehova . . . indutus, sum- 
maque Dei sanctitate munitus ornatusque.” After referring to 
a similar practice of the pagans, who wore coronets bearing the 
images of the gods, to show that they were their priests and 
devotees,’'® he remarks that, in contrast to the pagans and the 
Jewish High Priest, the Christians “non idoli nomen, nec nudas 
nominis ΓΤ ΓΤ literas, sed Christum ipsum, quando baptismi lavacro 
initiantur, et consecrantur, teste Apostolo, induunt.”*® For Christ 
is Jahve, our justice; He is the Holy One of the Lord, yes, Holi- 
ness itself. The golden plate, Deyling adds, possessed no inherent 
sanctity, as the Jews foolishly asserted; it was merely a symbol 
of the sanctity and justice of Christ with which the Christians 
are clothed in Baptism. 

Before concluding, we shall adduce one more parallel men- 
tioned by Deyling. As the High Priest had to observe a certain 
order in vesting with the sacerdotal robes, so the Christians must 


first put on Christ “in regeneratione et justificatione . . . imputa- 
tive per fidem, . . . dein in renovatione imitative per sanctifica- 
tionem.**° 


J. Lightfoot, who wrote in the middle of the seventeenth cen- 
tury, gives a similar explanation of the origin of the Pauline 
formula. He does not, however, derive the metaphor from the 
inauguration of the High Priest. He is of opinion that the meta- 
phorical use by St. Paul of “induere” and “exuere” is to be ex- 
plained by the vesting of the priests in the Old Law in general. 
For, when the turn of the priests came to minister in the temple, 
they first put off their ordinary clothes and, after washing them- 
selves, vested with the sacerdotal robes. Also during the time of 
their service in the temple, they took off their priestly garments ᾿ 
at night and resumed them again in the morning. “Ad hanc 
consuetudinem,” he concludes, “alludere videntur haec loca Scrip- 
turae in quibus induere et exuere metaphorice sumuntur.*?* 


b) From the Making of the Covenant with the Jewish People 


Theodore Hasaeus'”? rejects the exegesis of Deyling chiefly 
because the whole analogy is limited to only one point, namely, 
that of clothing ; whereas the fact or custom by which Gal. ITI, 27, 


118 Cfr. Suetonius, Domitianus, 4, 4. 

119 Op. cit., 322. 

120 Op. cit., 327. 

121 Opera, I, 650. 

122 De Baptizatis Christum indutis, 1018 ff. 


21 


is to be explained, must represent both a clothing and a washing. 
Also, he rejects, without comment, as unsatisfactory, the opinion 
advanced by J. Lightfoot and others, which contains both these 
elements. Only that fact or custom, he asserts, can serve as an 
adequate explanation of the expression “induere Christum”’ in Gal. 
III, 27, which contains the vestige of a washing and a clothing; 
the latter, however, must be of such a nature that it suggests the 
putting on of Christ as a garment. Moreover, the symbolic mean- 
ing of this fact or custom must have been kept alive in the minds 
of Jews and Christians by some teremony. Finally, it must agree 
with the purpose St. Paul had in view. All these elements, he 
thinks, are contained “in illustri illa populi Judaici in numerum 
Foederatorum Dei aggregatione”’ and in the Jewish and the 
Christian rites to which this fact gave rise. 

To obtain a fair idea of the nature of this interpretation, it 
will be sufficient to examine briefly the author’s exposition of his 
third point; namely, that the putting on of the clothes on the 
memorable occasion referred to may be regarded as a type of the 
putting on of Christ as a garment. The cloud under cover of 
which God appeared when he gave the Law on Sinai, was the 
same as the famous pillar of cloud and of fire, out of which God 
thereafter was wont to speak to His people. But, as is admitted 
even by the Jews, He who spoke from the cloud and promulgated 
the Law, was the Son of God. But this cloud or pillar, because 
it covered and surrounded the people, is represented under the 
picture of agarment. This contention he seeks to prove especially 
by passages from sacred and profane writers who describe a 
cloud after the manner of a garment, and from the fact that the 
water trickled down from out the cloud and surrounded the 
people like a garment. Since—so he would have us conclude—at 
the time of the making of the Covenant, after the people had 
washed themselves and put on their clothes—perhaps fresh clothes 
—Christ spoke through a cloud which bears some resemblance to 
a garment, the act of the people’s dressing may be conceived as a 
putting on of Christ. 


3. “INDUERE CHRISTUM” DERIVED FROM PAGAN CusToMS 
a) From the “Toga Virtlis” 
The figure “induere Christum,” some authors hold, has been 
borrowed by St. Paul from the custom of changing the “toga 
praetexta” for the “toga virilis.” When the Roman youth donned 


22 


the “toga virilis,” he was emancipated from the domestic rule and 
ushered into the ranks of citizens. The investment of a youth 
with man’s dress was celebrated by religious rites.1?* To this 
custom Bengel'** and Fausset**® refer St. Paul’s words when they 
call Christ our “toga virilis.” Bengel adds, in explanation of Gal. 
III, 27, that, consequently, the Christians are not estimated by 
what they were but that they are alike of Christ and in Christ,— 
namely, sons of God.**® 


Rendall, however, infers from St. Paul’s phrase not the idea 
of divine sonship but that of enfranchisement and emancipation 
from control. As the youth donned the “toga virilis’ when he 
became of age, so is the Christian “invested at his Baptism with 
the robe of spiritual manhood,” and thereby he comes into the 
possession of the “independence of a grown up son.”?!*? 


Cornelius a Lapide*** and Crocio’*® think that St. Paul refers 
also to the toga of the Hebrews. They add that with the toga the 
youths, as it were, put on “virum et virilem animum, virtutem et 
decus.” Wolf**® says Crocio’s view derives no slight degree of 
probability from the words of St. Paul, who, on the one hand, 
compares the Law with a pedagogue and the Jews with infants, 
and, on the other hand, alludes to the manhood or majority of 
the Galatians, who were converted to Christ. To illustrate the 
first point, Wolf quotes Crocio’s words in which he compares the 
moral law to a strict pedagogue, whose duty it was to lead the 
pupils to Christ ; the ceremonial law to the “toga puerilis,” which 
prefigured the “toga virilis” of Christ ; and the judicial law, to a 
nurse, who guarded the Jews against what might harm them. On 
the other hand, remarks Wolf, when St. Paul says the Galatians 
are no longer under the Law, as a pedagogue (v. 25), and calls 
them sons (v. 26), i.e., adults, he hints at their majority. The 
exegete concludes that the Christians who have put on Christ can 
well be compared to the Roman youths who “toga virili aetatis 
virilis et libertatis quoque argumentum praeferebant.”*** 


123 Cfr. Rendall, Ep. to the Gal., ΤΙ, 174. 

124 Gnomon of N. T., Il, 360. 

125 Comm. on O. and N. T.., Il, 332. 

126 Op. cit., II, 360. 

127 Op. cit., I, 174. 

128 Comm. in Scrip. S., XVIII, 27. 

129 Comm. in Ep. Pauli Minores, I, 96. 

130 Op. cit., ITI, 739. ἐξ 
181 Thid. 2 ot τσ τς, i ὦ 


28 
Ὁ) From the Initiation of the Sophists 


In their search for a suitable explanation of the Pauline for- 
mula, interpreters have gone so far as to suggest that the figure 
was derived from the initiation of the sophists. In ancient Greece, 
when a young man wished to be enrolled in the ranks of the 
sophists, he was ceremoniously conducted to the public baths and 
there clothed with a distinctive garb (τρίβων), which none but a 
sophist could wear. This initiation ceremony Hasaeus**? men- 
tions in passing as a possible, though not satisfactory, explanation 
of “induere Christum.” 


c) From Seneca or Stoicism 


Between the epistles of St. Paul and the writings of Seneca 
there are such striking parallels in thought and construction that 
some have deemed the two authors pupils, one of the other.** 
One of these parallels bears on our subject. Seneca exhorts 
Lucilium: “Indue magni viri animum et ab opinionibus volgi 
secede paulisper.”!** Pfleiderer'*®> notes the similarity between 
this exhortation and that contained in Rom. XIII, 14; but he 
does not think St. Paul borrowed his phrase from Seneca or vice 
versa. Clemen remarks that the resemblance “is one of expres- 
sion only.”’** Pfleiderer'*? thinks that the parallels between St. 
Paul’s style and Seneca’s prove that both drew from a common 
source, namely the Greek culture of the time, “which was deeply 
imbued with Stoic conceptions,” and which, moreover, exercised 
an influence on the Hellenistic Jews. Clemen,’** too, admits that 
St. Paul was “partially indebted for his style to Stoicism,” which 
flourished at Tarsus. 


d) From the Mystery Religions 


Perhaps the most interesting explication of our metaphor is 
that which derives it from the mystery religions. The most 
striking similarities between Christianity and the ancient religions 
of the Orient are those that refer to man’s rebirth and his union 
with the deity. In the mystery religions, man’s regeneration and 
union with his god is frequently expressed by a change of garment. 

132 De Baptizatis Christum indutis, to1t. 

188 Cfr, Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, I, 30. 

134 7ib. VII, Ep. V (67), 12. 

185 Op. cit., I, 41. 

186 Primit. Christ., 61.. 


137 ΟΡ. cit., I, 41. 
138 Op. cit., 61. 


24 


In the prehistoric period, divinities were represented under the 
form of animals ; and man, in taking the name and the semblance 
of his gods, believed that he identified himself with them. Even 
the ancient Romans clothed themselves with animal skins “be it 
that they believed they thus entered into communion with the 
monstrous idols which they worshipped, or that, in enveloping 
themselves in the pelts of their flayed victims, they conceived 
their bloody tunics to possess some purifying virtue.’’°* These 
primitive practices left their traces in numerous cults. The Roman 
mystics of later days put on cloth and paper masks, which repre- 
sented the deity they worshipped. The initiates of the different 
mysteries in Greece and Asia Minor bore the title of Bear, Ox, 
Colt, and similar names. But let us examine more. in detail the 
alleged analogies with St. Paul’s expression that are found in the 
different mysteries. 


a. Egyptian Mysteries.*°—The soul of one who is admitted 
to the mysteries of Isis, travels at night through the twelve houses 
of the zodiac, and in each his body is consecrated by a new gar- 
ment. The putting on of these garments signifies that he has 
undergone twelve transformations. In the morning, the initiated 
is clothed with the heavenly garment ; a burning torch is placed in 
his right hand, and on his head a crown, from which palm- 
branches protrude; like so many rays. Thus arrayed he is placed 
on a pedestal before the goddess as a statue of the sun-god and is 
revered by the assembled mystics as a god. His divine regenera- 
tion is then celebrated with a feast; and for a few days the initi- 
ated can enjoy the unspeakable happiness of being god’s image. 
Thereupon, he leaves his heavenly garment in the temple, where 
it is kept for him, and returns to the earth. If the goddess so 
desires, the mystery must be renewed. The renewal, however, 
can be effected only by the putting on of the heavenly garment. 
After his death, the mystic is again clothed with this garment or 
with a simple black and white dress, which designates the wearer 
as the Logos. The clothing with these garments is to signify the 
union of the deceased with his god. - 


B. Phrygian Mysteries.**—The same idea pervades the 
Phrygian Mysteries. The mystic is decked in a wonderful festive 
139 Cumont, Oriental in Rom. Paganism, 153-154. 


140 Cfr. Reitzenstein, Hellen. Mysterienreligionen, 29-30. 
141 Cfr. Reitzenstein, Op. cit., 32. 


25 


robe and a crown during the initiation, which consists in a bath, 
not with water, but with the blood of a bull. When the dress and 
the crown are tinged with the blood, he steps forth to be venerated 
as a god by the assembly. His dress is preserved for him; but 
after twenty years he must renew the consecration, at which he 
again wears the garment and thereby again becomes god. 


y. Persian Mysteries.‘*7—The cult of Mithra embodies similar 
ideas. In the liturgy of Mithra, which was strongly influenced 
by the Egyptian mysteries, the mystic who wishes to be reborn 
and to become a son of god wanders through the heavens and calls 
out for his own heavenly body which God has formed for him. 
This body he must put on instead of his earthly body; but after 
the initiation he must resume the garment of his earthly body. 

Cumont says that there were seven degrees of initiation in 
the mysteries of Mithra, and that the mystic successively assumed 
the names of Raven, Occult, Soldier, Lion, Persian, Runner of 
the Sun, and Father. “These strange appellations,” he continues, 
“were no empty epithets with no practical bearing. On certain 
occasions the celebrants donned garbs suited to the titles that had 
been accorded them.’’** On various bas-reliefs, they are repre- 
sented as carrying the counterfeit heads of animals, of soldiers, 
and of Persians. 

Dolger,*** to prove that the mystics wore the masks of their 
degree of initiation, refers especially to a representation of Mithra- 
communion on the bas-relief of Konjica. Here, on both sides of 
the table, we see mystics wearing animal masks, which, as Dolger 
emphasizes, cover only the face. 


δ. Babylonian Mystertes—To prove that these ideas were cur- 
rent also in the Babylonian mysteries, Dolger'*® calls attention to 
a relief in bronze which pictures the exorcism of a sick man. The 
relief is divided into two parts. Above, there are seven figures 
with animal heads, which represent the demons, who, according 
to the ideas of the Babylonians, are the cause of disease. Below, 
on a pallet, lies the sick man with his hands raised in supplication 
to the deity. At each end of the bed two figures, wrapped in a 
fish garment, are performing the exorcism. These figures repre- 

142 Cfr. Reitzenstein, /bid. 


148 Ob. cit., 152. 
144 ἸΧΘΥ͂Σ, 148. 


145 Op. cit., 147. 


26 


sent priests who are devoted to the cult of the fish deity Ea- 
Oannes. Dolger concludes that “wenn nun babylonische Priester 
im Fischgewand eingehillt erscheinen, so ist damit sinnbildlich 
dargestellt die engste Vereinigung mit der Gottheit, dadurch, dass 
man sie wie ein Gewand anzieht.”**° 

We have seen that the idea of putting on the garment of a god 
in order to express union with him, is quite common in the mys- 
tery religions. It need not surprise us, therefore, that students of 
the comparative study of religions assert St. Paul derived his idea 
of putting on Christ as a garment from the mysteries. 

But the discovery is not new. Already Hasaeus, who wrote 
in the beginning of the eighteenth century, referred in passing to 
the initiation into the mysteries of Isis and Mithra as possible 
explanations of the origin of St. Paul’s formula. He rejects this 
view as unsatisfactory, however, chiefly because, as he says, 
“Apostolus scribit ad Judaeos, quibus illa gentilium sacra, ad 
quae ἀμυτῆοις vix aliquis accessus concedebatur, aut prorsus non, 
aut parum sane perspecta atque explorata erant.’’** 

In our own times, however, Clemen says that the expression 
“to put on Christ” “might ultimately be traced to the belief— 
which was probably no longer held even in regard to the Mysteries 
in general—that the participant in the rites is physically united 
with the deity.”1*§ 

Dolger first discusses the dependence of St. Paul’s formula on 
the cult of Mithra. After pointing out that this form of worship 
was spread also in Tarsus, the Apostle’s native city, he states that, 
if it is true that in the cult of Mithra masks were worn in the 
religious services already in the first half of the first century, 
“ware es an und fiir sich nicht undenkbar, dass Paulus bei seinem 
Worte vom ‘Anziehen Christi’ hierauf Bezug genommen hatte.” 
But he adds immediately, “doch fehlt’der Hauptvergleichungs- 
punkt: das Anziehen des Gottlichen.” St. Paul, he explains, is 
speaking of the transformation into Christ, of the putting on of 
the spirit of Christ; whereas the masks, worn in the worship of 
Mithra, were indeed a symbol of the degree of initiation, but not 
of the putting on of the deity. This idea, he contends, is brought 
out in the picture described above of the exorcism of the sick man. 
For the fish garment covered, not only the head, but the whole 
body, and thereby expressed “die engste Beziehung zu Ea-Oannes, 


146 Op. cit., 147. 
147 Ob. cit., 104. 
148 Primit. Christ., 232. 


27 


dem Gott der Wasserwohnung, der Fischgottheit.” From this 
fact he draws the conclusion: “Ware zur Zeit des hl. Paulus 
diese morgenlandisch-babylonische Auffassung von dem Anziehen 
des Fischgottes auch in Tarsus, bezw. Kleinasien und Palastina 
bekannt gewesen,—der Beweis steht jedoch noch aus—so konnte 
man.-vielleicht mit Recht annehmen, dass der Apostel mit Bezug 
auf die gelaufige heidnische Vorstellung sein Wort vom Anziehen 
Christi gepragt hatte.”**® But this, he says, must remain an open 
question. Ddlger puts it down as his opinion that we need not 
admit a direct allusion to any symbolic investiture to explain the 
phrase of St. Paul, for the reason that the idea of ἐνδύεσθαι “als das 
Anziehen einer geistigen Qualitat oder Gemiitsverfassung” was 
very familiar to the Orientals.*° 

Steinmann follows Dolger pretty closely. After referring to 
the rites in vogue in the Babylonian and Persian mysteries, he 
concludes: “Sollte in diesen Brauchen wirklich der Gedanke der 
Vergottung durch Anziehen des Gewandes ausgedrtickt sein, so 
konnte man vielleicht mit Recht annehmen, dass der Apostel mit 
Bezug auf die gelaufige Vorstellung sein Wort vom Anziehen 
Christi gepragt hatte.”1>1 Yet, after recalling that this metaphor 
is found in Seneca and is frequently used by St. Paul, he prefers 
to regard the figure as an “Ausdruck der bilderreichen Sprache 
des Orients.”*°? We see from the foregoing review that even 
Catholic authors are much inclined to attribute some influence of 
the mystery religions on the use of our metaphor by St. Paul. 


e) From the Worship of Comus 


Before concluding this part of our investigation, we should 
like to note a few explanations taken from pagan religious cus- 
toms, which are said to apply especially or solely to Rom. XIII, 14. 
The first of these explanations is drawn from the worship of 
Comus, the god of festive mirth, in the later mythology of the 
Greeks. In the orgies celebrated in honor of this deity, men and 
women interchanged their clothes and gave themselves up to im- 
moral practices. To this dissolute custom St. Paul is said to allude 
when he commands the Romans, as it were, to put on, not Comus, 
but Christ. This opinion is held by John H. Majus and is men- 
tioned by Wolf.*** 

149 Op. cit., 149. 

150 Ob. cit., 149-150. 

151 Briefe an d. Thess. u. Gall., 96. 


152 [bid. 
158 Curae Phil. et Crit., ITI, 271. 


28 


The latter, however, vigorously opposes this view. He grants 
that in regard to Rom. XIII, 14, the gloss has a slight degree of 
probability (“speciem exiguam”) on account of the word κῶμος 
occurring in verse 13; but he maintains that the context of “1η- 
duere Christum” in Gal. III, 27, clearly proves that this interpre- 
tation is entirely false, for St. Paul here speaks of an entirely 
different matter, namely “de Christo, fide in baptismo ad justitiam 
induendo.”’*** He adds that, in his opinion, the metaphor in Rom. 
XIII, 14, refers, not to holiness that is not tainted by the vices of 
rioting and drunkenness (κώμων, μεθῶν), but “inprimis ad justitiam 
Christi tenendam et solicite servandam.”?** 

Kypke’**® adopts an explanation of St. Paul’s formula similar 
to that held by Majus. He does not, however, refer the words of 
Paul only to the worship of Comus, but in general to the κῶμοι, the 
nightly riotings that were held in honor of various gods. In these 
revels, men and women not only exchanged clothes, but frequently 
engaged in dances in which they wore masks. He concludes that 
St. Paul, in his exhortation, referred to these πρόσωπα and σχήματα 
and exhorted the Romans to flee the shameful vices practised on 
these occasions. 

{) From the Sacra Saliorum 


We may briefly note two other explanations of Rom. XIII, 14, 
which Deyling**’ tells us were held by his contemporaries. Some, 
he says, refer the words in question to the festivities of the Salli. 
Every year the Salii, who were priests of Mars, in memory of 
the small oval shield that fell from heaven during the reign of 
Numa Pompilius, marched through the city. Each carried a shield 
on his left arm and in his right hand a short staff with which he 
struck the shield. At the altars and the temples of the god they 
halted and, singing a special chant, danced a war dance. 


g) From the Lupercalia 


Another custom mentioned by Deyling*** which is made to 
serve as a key to “induere Christum” in Rom. XIII, 14, is the 
Lupercalia. After offering sacrifices to Lupercus and indulging in 
a banquet at which wine flowed plentifully, the priests, half naked 
and half clad in goat skins, ran through the streets at night and 
with thongs made of goat skins struck every person they met, 


154 Op. cit., III, 741. 
155 [bid. 

156 Observat. Sacr., Il, 185. 
157 Observat. Sacr., 328 ff. 
158 Op. cit., 320-330. 


29 


especially women, who sought the whipping from an opinion that 
it averted sterility and the pangs of childbirth. 

After reviewing the various customs proposed as the key for 
the explanation of “induere Christum,” we may note that some 
authors, like Ellicott,*** Sieffert-Meyer,’® Cornely,? and Schae- 
fer,’®? explicitly deny all reference of St. Paul’s words to any 
custom, whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan. The chief reasons 
for their rejection of all such explanations are summed up by 
Sieffert : “Geschichtl. rituelle Beziehungen des Bildes sind bei der 
allgemeinen Gangbarkeit desselben, und da der Kontext durchaus 
keine Andeutung enthalt, abzuweisen.”?® 


Corollary—Relation Between Gal. III, 27, and Rom. XIII, 14, 
in General 

Commentators, old and new, have compared the use of the 
Pauline formula in Gal. III, 27, with its use in Rom. XIII, 14. 
In the former passage, the putting on of Christ is referred to our 
justification, in the latter to our sanctification.1** Some authors 
refer the putting on of Christ mentioned in Gal. III, 27, also to 
our sanctification, and that spoken of in Rom. XIII, 14, to our 
justification.** 

In Gal. III, 27, the phrase is used in a “dogmatic” (Cook,!* 
Schaff,’®’ Sieffert-Meyer’®*) or “dogmatic-liturgical” sense 
Zockler*®*) ; in Rom. XIII, 14, in an “ethical” (Cook,}®* Schaff,?® 
Sieffert-Meyer,'®* Denney’”°) or “ethical-ascetical’”’ sense (Zo6ck- 
ler*®). In the former passages, the putting on of Christ is “rep- 
resented as a finished fact” (Schaff,’" Lipsius,’7? Sieffert- 
Meyer’”*) ; whereas, in the latter, it is the “subject of an ethical 


159 Comm. on Gal., 80. 

160 Brief an d. Gal., 228. 

161 Comm. in II Cor. et Gall., 517. 

162 Frklarung d. zwei Briefe an d. Thess. u. an d. Gal., 302. 

163 Op, cit., 228. 

164 (ἔτ, Calvin, Comm. on Rom., 490. D’Outrein, Spicilegium, 366 ff. 
Deyling, Observ. Sacr., 327. Wesley, Notes on N. T., 412. Godet, Comm. 
on Rom., 451. 


165 Cfr. Pool, Annotations on H. Bible, 526. Guyse, Practical Expos- 
stor, III, 541. Whedon, Comm. on N. T., III, 384. Binney, People’s Comm. 
on N. T., 428. 

166 Holy Bible with Comm., III, 214. 

167 Pop. Comm. on N. T.., III, 323. 

168 Brief an d. Gal., 228. 

169 Briefe an d. Thess. u. Gal., 71. 

170 Fb. to the Rom., 699. 

171 Op. cit., IIT, 323. 

172 Briefe an d. Gal. Rom. Phil., 171. 

173 Ob. cit., 228. 


30 


exhortation” (Lipsius*’*) to a “continuous duty” (Schaff'**). “In 
both cases,” adds Schaff, “vital fellowship is meant, but each step 
in the growing conformity to Christ is a new putting on of 
Fin, 7? : 

Luther*’® says the putting on of Christ mentioned in Gal. III, 
27, is “according to the gospel,” that mentioned in Rom. XIII, 14, 
is “according to the law.” 

Julicher*”’ warns us not to conclude from the use of this phrase 
by St. Paul in his exhortation to the Romans that there was no 
trace of the new spiritual life left in them. He merely used this 
emphatic expression to stir up their conscience thoroughly. 


Valuation and Conclusion of the First Chapter 


After reviewing the interpretations of “induere Christum” by 
commentators in medieval and modern times, we are in a position 
to state the net results and estimate their value at least to some 
extent. We have noted an astounding variety of opinions con- 
cerning the meaning and the origin of our metaphor. A number 
of exegetes think that the Pauline formula is immediately derived 
from the expression “to put on a garment” ; but they vary greatly 
in their explication of the fundamental idea expressed by this 
metaphor. Union, imitation, profession of discipleship, covering, 
and protection are the main ideas proffered. Some see in the 
expression a reference to the moral nakedness of the natural man, 
or of man in the state of original or personal sin. Others think 
the phrase used in Rom. XIII, 14, is equivalent to that other 
phrase of St. Paul, “put on the armour of light.” : 

Another class of interpreters seek to establish the philological 
origin of the phrase. Of these some contend it is of Hebrew, 
others of Greek origin. The principal idea contained in the origi- 
nal, and consequently in St. Paul’s expression, according to those 
who stand for the Hebrew origin of the phrase, is union, abun- 
dance, adoption, assumption of qualities, virtues, and sentiments, 
or acquisition of anything whereby we are honored or dishonored. 
Cremer insists that the expression denotes a state or condition, 
and not conduct. The meanings given to the original phrase and 
to the Pauline expression by those who emphasize the Greek 
origin, are still more numerous. By some commentators the ex- 

174 Op. cit., III, 323 and 134. 

175 Op. cit., III, 134. 


176 Comm. on Gal., 436. 
177 Brief an d. Rom., 311. 


31 


pressions are made to imply imitation in general; by others exter- 
nal or internal imitation, or both internal and external imitation, 
or discipleship, or intimate union and life-fellowship, or finally 
familiarity. Turner and Rendall say no general meaning can be 
given; but the sense must be determined by the context in every 
instance where the phrase is used. 

A third class of authors abstract from the philological origin 
of the phrase. Assuming the phrase to be a figure taken from 
the idea of putting on a garment, they maintain that St. Paul 
alludes to some fact or custom, by which his words must be ex- 
plained. Some of these commentators think the Apostle derived 
the simile from Christian customs: from the garments of Baptism, 
or the waters of Baptism. Others seek an explanation in Jewish 
customs or incidents ; namely, the inauguration of the High Priests 
under the second temple, the vesting of the priests with their min- 
isterial garbs, or the making of the Covenant on Mount Sinai. 
Finally, others propose pagan customs as the origin of the Pauline 
phrase. The investiture with the “toga virilis’”’ or with the cloak 
οὗ the sophists, or the dressing of the initiates in the various mys- 
tery religions with a garment to express their union with the 
deity, have been advanced as explanations. A few authors have 
suggested that the “induere Christum,” especially as used in Rom. 
XIII, 14, contains an allusion to the worship of Comus or to the 
Sacra Saliorum or to the Lupercalia. On the other hand, others 
positively deny all reference to any custom or fact, whether Chris- 
tian, Jewish, or pagan in origin. 

This tremendous confusion of ideas clearly shows that we have 
before us one of the greatest N. T. problems still awaiting a solu- 
tion. The investigation, however, of the conflicting and confusing 
interpretations of our metaphor is by no means useless for the 
solution of our difficulty. For, in the investigation of a problem, 
a historical review is bound to reveal the strength of one theory 
and the weakness of another. It shows which methods are im- 
possible and which may be practicable for the correct explanation. 
So it is in our case. Although by our historical review we have 
not been able to find the solution of our problem, still in the laby- 
rinth of opinions we can find a thread, which, if followed, may 
lead us to the solution. 

We have observed that some exegetes, in order to discover 
the fundamental idea contained in our metaphor, have sought 

first of all to establish the philological origin of the phrase together 


88 


with the meaning of the original. Commentators have noted a 
few examples of the very phrase of St. Paul, ἐνδύεσθαί τινα, in Greek 
authors. In the face of these facts, is it not reasonable to seek the 
key for the solution of our problem in the meaning and the use of 
this phrase by other Greek writers? For unless the context or 
the usage and spirit of St. Paul expressly demand the contrary, 
it must be assumed that he wrote ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν in the current 
understanding of the phrase ἐνδύεσθαί τινα. But just here lies the 
difficulty. For, as we have noticed, the answers that have been 
given to the all-important question concerning the precise meaning 
of this expression in Greek literature, are extremely conflicting. 
Hence it seems to be necessary for the solution of our problem 
to seek some authority who stands in close touch with the Hellenic 
world and with St. Paul, and who can, therefore, more surely 
unfold to us the hidden meaning of this phrase both in the Greek 
literature and in the writings of the Apostle. No one is better 
suited to this task than the great St. John Chrysostom. For, both 
as an interpreter of the meaning of Greek phraseology and as an 
exegete of St. Paul’s epistles, he ranks foremost among the schol- 
ars of the early Church. An ardent admirer of the Apostle of 
the Gentiles, he devoted himself to an assiduous study of his 
writings. In his exegesis, he is faithful to the historico-philolog- 
ical method. He seeks above all to establish the literal sense of 
Holy Scripture ; and to this end he often prefaces his explanation 
with a historical introduction, and at times he even stops to clear 
up grammatical difficulties. Well has it been said that “no one 
has ever interpreted Holy Scripture so successfully as Chrysostom, 
with such thoroughness and prudence, one might say, with such 
sobriety and accuracy, yet with so much depth and comprehen- 
siveness,”’?78 


For this task of exegesis he was eminently fitted. Reared and 
educated at Antioch, he was quite familiar with the thoughts and 
customs of the Oriental world. Besides, he was conversant with 
Greek philosophy and customs, was well versed in the Greek 
classics, and he lived at the time of the later phase of the κοινὴ 
διάλεκτος. Thus he not only was a grand representative of Oriental 
and Hellenic culture, but he also possessed a perfect knowledge of 
the ancient Greek literature as well as of the linguistic milieu in 
which St. Paul moved and wrote. 


118 Bardenhewer, Patrol., 339. 


CHAPTER II 


INTERPRETATION OF “INDUERE CHRISTUM” 
ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM 

As is evident from the first part of our investigation, there 
exists among commentators utter confusion concerning the mean- 
ing of the Pauline formula. In the present chapter we shall con- 
sult the writings of St. John Chrysostom, the greatest authority 
on exegesis in the early Greek Church, in the hope that he may 
throw some light on this obscure question. We shall examine in 
particular the two passages in his commentaries referring to the 
“induere Christum” in Rom. XIII; 14, and Gal. III, 27. We shall 
first take up his commentary on Rom. XIII, 14, which is contained 
in his XXIV Homily on this Epistle. 


I, ENAYES@AI XPISTON IN Rom. XIII, 14 
1. ExHORTATION TO PuT ON THE ARMS OF LIGHT 

In Rom. XIII, 12, Paul tells us: “The night is passed and the 
day is at hand. Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness 
and put on the arms of light”—<drodopeba οὖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους, 
ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός. The arms of light which we should 
put on, according to Chrysostom, produce a twofold effect in us: 
first, they place us in safety, because they are arms—ev ἀσφαλείᾳ σε 
καθίστησιν" ὅπλα γάρ ἐστι Second, they make us radiant, because 
they are arms of light—xai καταλάμπεσθαι ποιεῖ" φωτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὅπλα." 
We should not be terrified because Paul speaks of arms; for we 
must indeed fight, but we need not endure hardships and fatigue. 
For, Chrysostom continues, this is not a war but a choral dance 
and a high festival. He concludes: Such is the nature (1.6., the 
power) of these arms, such the power of the leader—rowatrn τῶν 
ὅπλων τούτων ἡ φύσις, τοιαύτη ἡ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ δύναμις. Who is this 
leader? Evidently Christ, whose soldiers we are.* It is interesting 
that our Doctor here refers the safety and splendor which the 
arms give us to Christ’s power. 


1 Migne, P. G., 60, 623. 
2 Ibid. . 
3 Cfr, II Tim. IT, 3. 


33 


34 


According to the exegesis of Chrysostom, the arms of light 
are a superior force and power and, if we put them on or enter 
into them “(ἐνδυσώμεθα), they produce a change in us and conform 
us to themselves ; they give us safety and splendor. The expres- 
sion ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ τὰ ὅπλα Must mean: let us enter under this power, 
let us give ourselves up to this power and consequently be changed 
by it and conformed to it. Later we shall see what Paul under- 
stands by “the arms” to which we should surrender ourselves. 


2. EXHORTATION To “Put oFF EviL” 

In v. 13, Paul exhorts us to walk honestly, as in the day ; there- 
upon he enumerates the principal works we should throw off. 
They are rioting and drunkenness, chambering and impurities, 
contention and envy. Chrysostom characterizes these sins as the 
bad garment—ra πονηρὰ ἱμάτια---οἵ which we should strip ourselves. 


3. EXHORTATION TO PuT ON CHRIST 

But, he says, Paul was not satisfied to strip us (ἀποδύσας) of 
these garments; he wished thereupon to decorate us splendidly 
(καλλωπίζει). But what is this new decoration? Paul tells us in 
the remarkable words: ἀλλὰ ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν 
(v. 14). 

The meaning of the words “induere Christum” Chrysostom 
sets forth by contrasting them with the “exuere” and with the 
“induere arma.” | 

a) The “exuere” of Paul in v. 12, refers to the κακία; but in 
speaking of this, says our Doctor, the Apostle mentions only deeds 
—Ore μὲν γὰρ περὶ τῆς κακίας ἔφησεν, ἔργα ἔλεγεν." These are the πονηρὰ 
ἱμάτια. 

Ὁ) The “induere” of Paul, therefore, naturally refers to the 
ἀρετῃ in contrast to the κακία. Here, however, as Chrysostom 
explains, Paul mentions not deeds but, in the first place, arms— 
ὅτε δὲ περὶ τῆς ἀρετῆς οὐκέτι ἔργα ἀλλ᾽ ὅπλα. Thereby, he continues, 
the Apostle shows that virtue places him who possesses it in com- 
plete safety and complete splendor—Sexvis ὅτι ἐν πάσῃ ἀσφαλείᾳ 
καθίστησιν ἡ ἀρετὴ τὸν ἔχοντα αὐτὴν, καὶ ἐν πάσῃ λαμπρότητι. Thus we 
see that the ὅπλα in v. 12 is a metaphorical expression for ἀρετή. 
By this explanation of ὅπλα Chrysostom evidently characterizes 
virtue as a superior power ; and, if we enter into it (ἐνδυσώμεθα), 

4 ’Evdtw literally = to go into; cfr. Liddell-Scott, Greek-Eng. Lex., 476. 

5 Migne, P. G., 60, 623. 


6 [bid. 


τ᾿ Migne, P. G., 60, 623-624. 


35 


we are possessed of and changed by it ; we are made perfectly safe 
and brilliant. ᾿Ενδυσώμεθα τὰ ὅπλα then means: let us give ourselves 
over to the power of virtue; the éyovra simply expresses the fact 
of possession. 

c) But, says Chrysostom, Paul does not pause here but passes 
on to something greater, something far more tremendous—éAd’ 
ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον ἄγων τὸν λόγον, ὃ πολλῷ φρικωδέστερον jv.® This tremen- 
dous mystery is expressed in the following words: αὐτὸν τὸν 
Δεσπότην δίδωσιν ἡμῖν ἱμάτιον, αὐτὸν τὸν βασιλέα----Ἴ6 gives us the Lord 
Himself as a garment ; and he enforces this phrase by the words, 
the King Himself. The last words, it seems, are added to bring 
out in strong relief the contrast to the arms. We are the soldiers 
of Christ our King; but we “put on,” not only the arms of our 
King, but the King Himself. The expression ἐνδύσασθε... 
Χριστόν might at first sight seem to be a mere metaphor, especially 
since it is used in connection with the figurative phrase ἐνδυσώμεθα 
δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός. But Chrysostom does not regard it in this 
light. He tells us that the Apostle uses the phrase ἐνδυσώμεθα. . . 
τὰ ὅπλα in order to show more strikingly the effects produced by 
virtue; but the expression ἐνδύσασθε... Χριστόν is something 
greater, something far more awe-inspiring—oAdo φρικωδέστερον. 
It is something mysterious, which excites wonder and awe. 
Therefore it goes beyond the metaphor ; and Chrysostom, instead 
of explaining that the words of Paul τὸν κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, 
stand for something else, tells us they stand for what they express, 
namely αὐτὸν τὸν Δεσπότην... αὐτὸν τὸν βασιλέα. Note how he em- 
phasizes the reality by prefixing the αὐτὸν to Δεσπότην and to βασιλέα. 
He says in substance: Put on not only the arms of the King, 1.6., 
virtue, but the Lord Himself, the King Himself. 


4. EXPLANATION OF THE ENAYSAS@E—XPIZTON 

The question is: What is the precise and full meaning of this 
phrase? The words ἐνδυσώμεθα δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ φωτός, aS we have 
seen, mean, according to Chrysostom’s explanation: Let us give 
ourselves up to the power of virtue, which will effect that we have 
or possess virtue (τὸν ἔχοντα αὐτήν), and that, consequently, we are 
changed by it and conformed to it. By analogy we can infer the 
general meaning of the command ἐνδύσασθε... Χριστόν; viz., 
Give yourselves up to the power of Christ, so that you may possess 
Him and be changed by Him, and conformed to Him. Does this 
agree with Chrysostom’s exposition of the words? | 

8 Migne, . G., 60, 624. 


36 


Chrysostom first explains the effect this “induere” produces 
in us. As is evident from the context and the explanation of 
Chrysostom given above, the words ἐνδύσασθε... Χριστόν are 
intended by the Apostle to refer to the acquisition or practice of 
virtue. Therefore, Chrysostom, in his explanation, likewise refers 
to virtue. To the words, he gives us the Lord Himself for a gar- 
ment, the King Himself, he adds: for he who has put Him on, 
possesses virtue in its entirety—‘O yap τοῦτον περιβεβλημένος, ἅπασαν 
ἔχει καθόλου τὴν ἀρετῆν. 

The first effect of the “induere arma” is our having, or pos- 
sessing virtue—rov ἔχοντα αὐτῆν, 1.6., ἀρετὴν. But he who has put on 
(περιβεβλημένος) Christ, says Chrysostom, possesses not only virtue 
but absolutely all virtue—azacay ἔχει καθόλου τὴν dpernv. It is re- 
markable that he so strongly emphasizes the completeness of virtue 
by the double modifier ἅπασαν and καθόλουι The phrase ἅπασα. . . 
καθόλου ἡ ἀρετῇ must be regarded as personified in Christ, since it 
can not be said of any Christian that he possesses absolutely all 
virtue. The phrase then turns out to mean: he has, possesses Him, 
who is ἅπασα καθόλου ἡ ἀρετῇ, who is the personification and source 
of absolutely all virtue. The conclusion is naturally implied: and 
Christ will produce virtue in him who has put Him on. 

Chrysostom next explains the greatness of this mystery. He 
can not find words to express it. To put on Christ means, in the 
first place, to be completely surrounded by Him. He comments: 
But in saying Ἐνδύσασθε, he bids us put Him around us on 
all sides—rdvrofev ἡμᾶς αὐτὸν περιβαλέσθαι κελεύει." This, he con- 
tinues, is equivalent to the expression of Paul in Rom. VIII, το: 
But if Christ be in you—ei δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, and to his words in 
Eph. III, 16, 17, which Chrysostom quotes with a remarkable 
interpunctuation: That Christ may dwell in our inner man—eis τὸν 
ἔσω ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπον κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστόν. This inner man is the soul ; 
for, explains Chrysostom, he (Paul) wishes our soul to be a dwell- 
ing for Him (οἰκίαν αὐτῷ), and Him to be put about us as a garment 
---Οὡς ἱμάτιον ἡμῖν αὐτὸν περικεῖσθαι. ᾿ 

The striking expressions which Chrysostom employs to explain 
the first effect of the “induere Christum,” emphasize the reality 
of our possession of Christ or, which is the same, Christ’s dwelling 
in us. Likewise, the “horrendum mysterium” of which Chrysos- 
tom speaks, excludes a figurative sense and points to this reality. 
Our real possession of Christ or His real indwelling in us, as it is 


® Migne, P. G., 60, 624. 


37 


described by Chrysostom, implies the mystic union of the creature 
with Christ, its Lord and King. | 

_ Next, Chrysostom tells us the purpose of Christ’s indwelling 
in us. Paul wishes Christ to be in us and about us, in order that 
He may be unto us all things, both from within and from without 
—iva πάντα αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ἦ ἔσωθεν καὶ ἔξωθεν. This last phrase implies 
that we are to give ourselves up wholly to the possession and 
power of Christ ; we are to be perfectly subject to Him and to live 
only for Him; so that He, as our Lord and King, may rule and 
dominate our whole being. Christ is, therefore, here regarded as 
a superior power. If we enter into Him, He exercises His power 
over us by really uniting Himself to us, so that He can dominate 
our whole being. Ἐνδύσασθε. » . Χριστόν then means nothing else 
than give yourselves up to the possession and power of Christ, 
that He may exercise His power over you by uniting you to Him- 
self in a real, mystic union and dominate your whole being. This 
meaning will become clearer as we proceed. 

After explaining the first effect of the “induere,” Chrysostom 
describes in detail how Christ exercises His power in us, how He 
seeks to unite Himself to us most intimately in order to be our all, 
—in order to dominate us wholly. 


To this end he enumerates all the titles he can think of wihioh 
can be applied to Christ to express His relation of dominion to 
His followers. For, he says, He is our fulness (aAypopa) —way, 
husband, bridegroom, root, drink, meat, life, apostle, high priest, 
teacher, father, brother, joint heir, sharer of the tomb and cross, 
suppliant, advocate to the Father, house, inhabitant, friend, foun- 
dation, cornerstone. Then he adds the titles which show our rela- 
tion to Christ and which again point to His dominion over us. 
We are His members and heritage and building and branches and 
fellow workers.*° Although he has enumerated all the titles he 
can, still he feels he has not fully expressed the truth contained 
in this mystery. He, therefore; asks: What is there that He does 
not wish to be to us, since He binds and unites us to Him in every 
way? This, he adds, is characteristic of one who loves exceed- 
ingly—Ti yap ov βούλεται ἡμῖν εἶναι, παντὶ τρόπῳ συγκολλῶν Kal συνάπτων 
ἡμᾶς ; ὅπερ τοῦ σφόδρα φιλοῦντός ἐστι. 

The mutual relations between Christ “nd us, which are enu- 
merated above, not only express our intimate union with Christ, 
but imply also His power and dominion over us and our charac- 


‘0 Cfr. Migne, P. G., 60, 624. 


38 

teristic of being His property. At the end_of this passage, Chrys- 
ostom expressly tells us that Christ seeks to be our all by uniting 
and joining us to Him in every way. This uniting of us to Him, 
of course, presupposes the power and dominion of Christ over us, 
His property. Here then we have again the principal elements 
of the “horrendum mysterium,” possession of us as His property 
and His actual dominion over us and our consequent real union 
with Him. But the mystery includes still more. Although Christ, 
as our Lord and King, has power and dominion over us, still the 
motive that guides Him in its exercise is His exceeding love for us. 
It is for this reason that He exercises His power by uniting us to 
Him in every way—zarzi τρόπῳ συγκολλῶν καὶ συνάπτων ἡμᾶς ; ὅπερ τοῦ 
σφόδρα φιλοῦτός ἐστι. 

Chrysostom continues his exposition thus: Obey then and, 
rousing thyself from sleep, put Him on (ἔνδυσαι αὐτόν), and when 
thou hast put Him.on give up thy flesh to His bridle—xai ἐνδυσάμενος 
εὐήνιον αὐτῷ πάρεχε τὴν σάρκα. For this is what Paul intimates when 
he says, “Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.” 
The putting on of Christ here includes the subjection also of our 
flesh (body) to the power of Christ. Finally, after mentioning 
various vices that excite our lust, Chrysostom concludes: But 
thou, having put on Christ and thereby renounced all those things, 
seek only one thing, namely, to have a healthy body— AAA’ ὁ τὸν 
Χριστὸν ἐνδεδυμένος σὺ, πάντα ἐκεῖνα περικόψας, ἕν ζήτει μόνον, ὅπως 
ὑγιαίνουσαν ἔχης τὴν σάρκα. 

According to Chrysostom’s explanation given in the first half 
of the XXIV Homily on the Epistle to the Romans, the phrase 
ἐνδύσασθε. . . Χριστόν means: 

a) Give yourselves up to the possession and dominion of 
Christ, who is your possessor as you are His property. 

b) This power Christ exercises over you out of love; conse- 
quently | : 

c) You are united to Him in every way; so that 

d) He dwells actually in you and 

e) Dominates your whole being, even your body. 


5. CONFIRMATION OF THE REALITY OF CHRIST’S INDWELLING 
In Us 


Of the phrase εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν, which was cited by Chrysostom 
to show that the “induere Christum” effects the real indwelling 


11 Migne, P. G., 60, 624. 


80 


of Christ in us, we find a wonderful exposition in the XIII Homily 
on the Epistle to the Romans. In this passage, Chrysostom em- 
phasizes the reality of Christ’s indwelling in us and of His taking 
possession of us. According to Chrysostom, the indwelling of 
Christ in us is implied by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. But 
the reality of the indwelling of the latter he stresses again and 
again by repeating the word ἔχειν. We have, possess, the Spirit; 
ἦ.6., the Spirit dwells in us in reality. A striking description of 
the reality of this possession of the Spirit is given in the following 
words: Do not fear when you hear me speak of mortification 
(νέκρωσιν) ; for you possess the life really, which no death will 
deprive you of ; for this is the life of the Spirit. The Πνεῦμα here 
according to the context, is the third ὑπόστασις of the Τρίας.--- ἔχεις 
yap τὴν ὄντως ζωὴν, ἢν οὐδεὶς διαδέξεται θάνατος. Τοιαύτη yap ἡ τοῦ 
Πνεύματος.᾽2 Chrysostom further describes the power and dominion 
of the Spirit over death: He utterly destroys death, and preserves 
immortal what He receives—*Avadioxe θάνατον καὶ Sarava, καὶ ὅπερ 
ἔλαβεν, ἀθάνατον διατηρεῖ. To have the Spirit in us, therefore, 
means to be His property and to be subject to His power. 

But Paul says not-only, “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell 
in you”; (Rom. VIII, 9) but also, “If Christ be in you.” (v. 10) 
This does not mean, Chrysostom says, that the Πνεῦμα is Christ 
(as is frequently the case in the early patristic literature) ; but 
that he who possesses the Spirit οὐ μόνον τοῦ Χριστοῦ χρηματίζει, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ αὐτὸν ἔχει τὸν Χριστόν ;** 1.6., not only officially wears the title of 
Christ, but possesses Christ Himself. Christ’s indwelling in us or 
our possession of Him follows from the Spirit’s indwelling; it 
must be, therefore, real and actual, like the latter. For, says Chrys- 
ostom, it is impossible that the Spirit is present and not Christ— 
Οὐ γὰρ ἔστι Πνεύματος παρόντος, μὴ καὶ Χριστὸν παρεῖναι; because, 
wherever one of the ὑπόστασις of the Trinity is, there is the whole 
Trinity—raoa παρέστιν ἡ Tplas. 

In this passage, then, is emphasized the reality of Christ’s in- 
dwelling in us or our possession of Him, which according to Chrys- 
ostom is the ‘effect of the “induere Christum.” But he shows 
still more clearly that Christ’s indwelling in us implies also 
His dominion and control over us. Among the evils that come 
from not aeaaehee. the Holy Spirit,—é« τοῦ μὴ ἔχειν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον 
—he mentions τὸ μὴ εἶναι ὡς χρὴ τοῦ ae A τὸ μὴ ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἔνοικον 


12 Migne, P. G., 60, 519. 
18 [bid. 
14 Tbid, 


40 


—the not belonging to Christ, as is proper, and the not having Him 
indwelling. On the other hand, among the blessings that come 
from possessing the Spirit—éx τοῦ Πνεύματος ἔχειν---ς enumerates 
τὸ Χριστοῦ εἶναι, τὸ αὐτὸν ἔχειν τὸν Χριστὸν, τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις ἁμιλλᾶσθαι" 
—the belonging to Christ, the possessing of Christ, the vying with 
the angels. It seems that Chrysostom regards the τὸ Χριστοῦ εἶναι 
and the τὸ αὐτὸν ἔχειν τὸν Χριστὸν as belonging together ; the former 
being the cause of the latter. Τὸ Χριστοῦ εἶναι, however, means to 
be His property and to be subject to His power, so that we live 
for Him and He dominates us, as St. Paul says, Rom. XIV, 8: 
“Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we 
die unto the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or whether we 
die, we are the Lord’s”—-roi κυρίου ἐσμέν. He continues, v. 9: “For 
to this end Christ died and rose again that he might dominate 
both the dead and the living”—iva καὶ νεκρῶν καὶ ζώντων κυριεύσῃ. 
Here Chrysostom exclaims: Behold the absolute domination! 
behold the insuperable power !—Eides δεσποτείαν ἐπιτεταμένην. Hides 


ἰσχὺν ἄμαχον.᾽ 


6. FuRTHER EXPLANATION OF “INDUERE CHRISTUM” AND OF ITS 
EFFECTS 

Towards the end of the XXIV Homily on the Epistle to the 
Romans, the “induere Christum” is again explained; especially 
its effects are again emphasized with wonderful force and clear- 
ness and further developed. Here Chrysostom exhorts his readers 
to put on Christ in order to avoid all the vices he has just men- 
tioned. That we may escape from all these (things), let us put 
on Christ—rov Χριστὸν ἐνδυσώμεθα, and be with Him continually— 
καὶ per’ αὐτοῦ διηνεκῦς ὦμεν. Evidently these last words, which 
express a lasting union, are an explanation of the preceding τὸν 
Χριστὸν ἐνδυσώμεθα, and must stand in relation to it as the effect to 
the cause. In this passage, Christ is without doubt regarded as 
a power who can and will afford us protection, provided we put 
Him on and thereby become united to Him. The τὸν Χριστὸν 
ἐνδυσώμεθα, therefore, must mean: Let us enter into the power of 
Christ, let us become the property of Christ and give ourselves up 
to His power. In the passage before us, then, we have expressed : 

a) The surrender to the power of Christ—rév Χριστὸν 
ἐνδυσώμεθα, which has as its immediate effect 

15 Migne, P. G., 60, 519. 


16 Migne, P. G., 60, 631. 
17 Migne, P. G., 60, 627 


41 
b) A lasting union with Christ—xai per’ αὐτοῦ διηνεκῶς ὦμεν ; and 
as a further effect 
c) The protection against the evils—iv’ οὖν ταῦτα διαφύγωμεν 
ἅπαντα. This exposition is highly illuminating and interesting. 


Chrysostom immediately tells us expressly that the lasting union 
is included in the “induere.” He says: ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἐνδύσασθαι, 
τὸ μηδέποτε αὐτοῦ ἀπολειφθῆναι.----ἘῸΤ this is the meaning of “to have 
put Him on,” never to be separated from Him. But he empha- 
sizes in the same sentence another effect of the “induere”: τὸ 
πάντοθεν αὐτὸν φαίνεσθαι ἐν ἡμῖν,----ἰο exhibit Him always in us. These 
words express the visibility of Christ in us. He should be visible 
in us. We should really be what Christ is; we should be other 
Christs. 


This visibility of Christ in us is evidently an effect of the 
“induere.” From this we must conclude that the lasting union, 
too, is an effect of the “induere,” for the two clauses are parallel. 
Through the union with Christ, which is the effect of the “induere 
Christum,” the visibility of Christ in us is produced. Moreover, 
since this visibility is the effect of the “induere,” it says more than 
mere imitation, it implies rather an assimilation to Christ. 

But we may ask in what respect Christ should be visible in us. 
Since many things can be predicated of Him, the context or the cir- 
cumstances must determine in each case the nature and the extent 
of this representation or assimilation. We have said that Paul’s 
exhortation, ἐνδύσασθε... Χριστόν, in Rom. XIII, 14, refers to 
the acquisition or practice of virtue; and it is in this sense that 
Chrysostom explains the Apostle’s words. He tells us that Christ 
should be visible in us through our sanctity and through our mod- 
eration—o.a τῆς ἁγιωσύνης ἡμῶν, διὰ τῆς ἐπιεικείας. In other words, 
the holiness and the moderation that are Christ’s should be like- 
wise ours ; we should be other Christs in holiness and moderation. 

According to this important passage of Chrysostom, ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν Means 

a) To surrender oneself to the power of Christ, and conse- 
quently 3 | 

b) To be united with Him permanently, and thereby 

c) To be conformed to Him, in Rom. XIII, 14, in regard to 
holiness and moderation, and thus 

d) To be protected against the vices, the virtues totally sup- 
planting them. 


42 


If we compare this passage with the explanation given of 
“induere Christum” in the first part of this homily, we note: 
a) According to both passages, “induere Christum” means 
a) To give ourselves up to the possession and power of 
Christ, to become His property. 
8) Christ exercises His power over us, uniting us to Him- 
self intimately and permanently. 
b) In the first part of the homily, Chrysostom emphasizes 
that the exercise of this power is owing to Christ’s love. 
c) In the second part of the homily, he adds a further effect 
of the “induere,” namely, our conformity with Christ. 


7. EXPLANATION OF “INDUERE CHRISTUM” BY A PROVERB 

It is of great interest and importance that Chrysostom illustrates 
the meaning of the Pauline formula by a popular proverb. After 
the explanation of the “induere Christum” given above, Chrys- 
ostom continues: Οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ φίλων λέγομεν, Ὃ δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα 
ἐνεδύσατο, τὴν πολλὴν ἀγάπην λέγοντες καὶ τὴν ἀδιάλειπτον συνουσίαν. 5 So 
we say of friends, such a one has put on such another, meaning 
their great love and constant intercourse ; for—so he continues— 
he who has put on seems to be that which he has put on—<6 yap 
ἐνδυσάμενος, ἐκεῖνο φαίνεται, ὅπερ ἐνδέδυται. 

Considering the meaning given above of ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν, the 
phrase 6 δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα ἐνεδύσατο, when used of friends, should mean 
that the one gives himself up to the influence of the other and 
consequently becomes really his property and is both united and 
conformed to him. Chrysostom, however, says that the phrase 
expresses the strong love and the constant intercourse of friends. 
At first sight, it may seem that these two explanations are at 
variance; but they harmonize perfectly. The proverb clearly 
contains the three principal elements of the phrase ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν, surrender to the influence of another, union, and con- 
formity. 

a) Love or friendship naturally moves a person to give him- 
self up to the influence of his friend, so as to become his property. 
The influence which the latter exercises likewise is owing to his 
love for the former. This love and the consequent influence of the 
one friend over the other result in 

b) Real union of the friends, and 

c) Assimilation or conformity of the one to the other, so that 
the one is visible in the other and may be called his “alter ego.” 

18 Migne, P. G., 60, 627. 


43 


In answer to the question, in what respect one is visible in the 
other, we may say that the words of Chrysostom show,—and in 
common parlance the circumstances will indicate-—that the con- 
formity effected by this ἐνδύεσθαι is to be understood as a con- 
formity in thoughts, sentiments, and even exterior habits. This 
second effect is included in the first and is also expressly stated by 
Chrysostom when he adds the ground of analogy of this proverb: 
For he who has put on (someone or something) appears to be 
that which he has put on. It is clear from this explanation that 
the ἐνδύεσθαι in this proverb means, to become the possession of 
another, to give oneself up to his power and control. Moreover, 
this proverb is especially well adapted to illustrate and confirm 
the meaning of ἐνδυέοθαι Χριστόν, since it both emphasizes the 
reality of our union with Christ and shows again that He exercises 
His power over us out of love. 


8. CONFIRMATION OF THE MEANING OF THE PROVERB 

The meaning of the proverb 6 δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα ἐνεδύσατο and con- 
sequently also of the phrase ἐνδύεσθαι... Χριστόν finds a remark- 
able confirmation in the XIII Homily of Chrysostom on the 
Epistle to the Ephesians. In a moral exhortation, which he sub- 
joins to his interpretation of St. Paul’s words: “And put on the 
new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness 
of truth” (Eph. IV, 24), he urges his hearers to put on the gar- 
ment of justice and never to put it off. To strengthen his exhor- 
tation he adds that “to put on” means nothing else than never to 
put off—To δὲ, ἐνδύσασθαι, οὐδὲν ἄλλο δηλοῖ, ἢ τὸ μηδέποτε ἀποθέσθαι.. 5 
In order to prove his statement, he cites two texts of the Psalmist, 
who speaks of man as having put on a curse as a garment— 
᾿Ἐνεδύσατο κατάραν ws ἱμάτιον, καὶ ἥξει αὐτῷ 5 (Ps. CVIII, 18), and of 
God as having put on light as ἃ σαγπιθηΐ---καὶ πάλιν, Ὁ περιβαλλόμενος 
φῶς ὡς ἱμάτιον (Ps. CITT, 2).3 To these texts he adds: καὶ πάλιν ἡμῖν 
ἔθος λέγειν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, Ὁ δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα ἐνεδύσατο. He gives no 
further explanation of this phrase, but simply draws the conclu- 
sion that we should always be arrayed in virtue. 

But of the text in Ps. CVIII, 18, which he quotes here as 
having the same meaning of ἐνδύεσθαι as our proverb, we find a 
further exposition in his homily on this psalm. There he shows 
that the phrase, “he put on a curse as a garment” implies, not only 

19 Migne, P. G., 62, 97. 


20 [bid.—Note the strange reading : Καὶ ἥξει αὐτῶ͵ 
21 Ibid. 


44 


a permanent union, but, in the first place, the power and control 
of the curse over man, its property. In verse 18, we read: “And 
he put on a curse as a garment, and it went in like water into his 
entrails, and like oil in his bones.” By these words, says Chrysos- 
tom, the Psalmist indicates the strength of the blow (τὸ σφοδρὸν τῆς 
πληγῆς) and the permanence of the punishment (τὸ μόνιμον τῆς 
τιμωρίας), thereby showing that evils come to all men from them- 
selves (οἴκοθεν) and from their own will (παρὰ τῆς οικείας γνώμης), 
because by their deeds and actions they repel the blessings and 
cast themselves headlong upon the punishments—rais δὲ τιμωρίαις 
ἑαυτοὺς ἐπεμβάλλουσι. This phrase shows that the words “he put 
on a curse,” means, he of his own accord surrendered himself to 
the power of the curse, he became its property. 

In v. 19 of the same psalm, the idea of man’s surrender to the 
curse is further developed. We read: “May it be unto him like 
a garment which covereth him: and like a girdle with which he 
is girded continually.” In explaining these words, Chrysostom 
emphasizes still more the control and domination of the curse 
over the sinner. According to him, the Psalmist wishes to say: 
Thus will the evils possess and control them (καθέξει) that they 
will have no change: but they will be fastened in them (the sin- 
ners) and will remain firm, 1.6., the sinners will remain accursed 
- ὁ δὲ λέγει τοῦτό ἐστιν Οὕτως αὐτοὺς τὰ κακὰ καθέξει, ws μηδὲ μεταβολὴν 
τινα σχεῖν" ἀλλ᾽ ἐναποστηριχθήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς, καὶ μενεῖ βέβαια." These 
words confirm the meaning given above of ἐνδύεσθαι; for they 
plainly show that this word expresses the surrender to the pos- 
session and control of another person or thing and consequently a 
permanent union and assimilation to the former. 


9. CONCLUSION OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE ENAYSAX@E ... 
XPISTON 


After this digression, let us return to Chrysostom’s explana- 
tion of ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν. Having explained the meaning and the 
effects of the Pauline formula by the proverb, he concludes: Let 
then Christ be seen in every part of us—®awé6w τοίνυν πάντοθεν ἐν 
ἡμῖν ὁ Xpwrds.2* The holiness and the moderation, through which, 
as he said above, Christ should be visible in us, should show them- 
selves in deeds similar to those of Christ. Therefore, to his own 
question, how He should be seen (πῶς φανεῖται) he answers, If 


22 Migne, P. G., 55, 263. 
23 Migne, P. G., 60, 627. 


45 


thou doest His deeds—’Av τὰ ἐκείνου ποιῆς. Therefore, he exhorts 
them to imitate the example of Christ (τοῦτο καὶ σὺ {nAwoov), which 
he then describes.” | 


Conclusion and Summary 

According to St. John Chrysostom, ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν --ΞΞ 

1. To surrender ourselves to the possession and dominion of 
Christ, to become the property and possession of Christ, who out 
of love for us exercises His power over us by 

2. Uniting us most intimately to Himself. This union is 

a) permanent “ex parte Christi,” 

b) real, above all. This is the “horrendum mysterium,” 
that, in consequence of our surrender to Him, He out of love 
really dwells in us and consequently really dominates our 
being by 
3. Conforming us to Him. This conformity, as the context of 

St. Paul’s ἐνδύσασθε... Χριστόν and Chrysostom’s explicit expla- 
nation shows, refers here to the acquisition and practice of virtue. 
We should be other Christs by our holiness and moderation. 
Christ, who is absolutely all virtue, will help produce this effect 
in us. 

4. This meaning of ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is illustrated and con- 
firmed by a popular proverb which has essentially the same mean- 
ing as the Pauline formula: to surrender to the influence of an- 
other, to become the property of another, who exercises his influ- 
ence out of love; union and conformity are the effects. 

5. The expression ἐνδύεσθαί τινα was quite common at least in 
the later κοινὴ διάλεκτος, and its meaning was well known to all. 

6. According to Chrysostom, St. Paul wrote his formula in 
the current understanding of the common phrase ἐνδύεσθαί τινα. 

It need not surprise us that Chrysostom does not say in express 
words ἐνδύεσθαι ---- to give oneself up to the power, to become the 
property, of some one or some thing. For the use of the expres- 
sion was so common that its most elemental and essential idea 
was clear as daylight to all. Therefore, he explains chiefly its 
effects, which differ somewhat according to the circumstances in 
which the phrase is used and according to the nature of the person 
or the thing that is the object of the ἐνδύεσθαι. But from this ex- 
planation we can not escape the conclusion that the fundamental 
meaning of the term, according to Se is, to become the 

24 [bid, 


46 


property of, to give oneself up to the possession and dominion of 
another person or thing. 


II. ENAYES@AI XPISTON IN Gat. III, 27 


in Chrysostom’s commentary on Gal. III, 27, we have, not 
only a most emphatic confirmation of the explanation of ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν given in his exposition of Rom. XIII, 14, but a still more 
striking explanation of the problem and in addition the all-impor- 
tant and distinct reference to Baptism as the historical fact by 
which the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is effected in the life of the Christian. 


1. THE “HorrENDUM MySsTERIUM” OF ENEAYSAS@E XPISTON 


In Gal. III, 26, we read: “For you are all children of God, 
by faith in Christ Jesus.” In these words, says Chrysostom, Paul 
pronounces a great and wonderful truth—péya εἶπε καὶ θαυμαστόν ; 
and in the following verse, he explains the manner in which they 
became sons of (οά---λέγει καὶ τὸν τρόπον τῆς υἱοθεσίας. He quotes 
the words: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ 
have put on Christ”’—Ooo γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε Χριστὸν 
ἐνεδύσασθε. Then he raises the question, why we have here the ex- 
pression Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε and not the words ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθητε 
—have been begotten of God. For, he adds, the latter expression 
is better adapted to convey the idea that they are sons of God— 
τὸ yap ἀκόλουθον τοῦ δεῖξαι υἱοὺς τοῦτο ἦν. He answers in the remark- 
able words: Ὅτι πολὺ φρικωδέστερον αὐτὸ τίθησι. The words, you 
have been begotten of God, would indeed prove some kind of 
divine sonship of the Galatians; but Paul uses the expression 
Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε in order to express this truth in a far more awe- 
inspiring way. | | 

Here we have the same word as in his exposition of the 
ἐνδύσασθαι----Κριστόν in Rom. XIII, 14. The word φρικωδέστερον in 
both passages expresses the awe (horrendum) of the mystery. 
The words ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν, therefore, contain for Chrysostom far 
more of the awful and mysterious than the phrase “to be begotten 
of God,” which would seem to be awful and mysterious enough. 
This again points to something more extraordinary, something far 
beyond the limits of anything yet heard of. What is it? 


2. DESCRIPTION OF THE “HORRENDUM MyYSTERIUM” 
Chrysostom immediately describes the tremendous mystery: 


Εἰ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς Yids τοῦ Θεοῦ, σὺ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐνδέδυσαι, τὸν Υἱὸν ἔχων ἐν 


47 


ἑαυτῷ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφομοιωθεὶς, εἰς μίαν συγγένειαν καὶ μίαν ἰδέαν ἤχθης."δ 
For, if Christ is the Son of God, and thou hast put Him on, then 
thou, who hast the Son within thee and hast been made like unto 
Him, hast been brought into one relationship and one nature with 
Him.”® 

This is a striking explanation of the “horrendum mysterium,” 
Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. In this one sentence, we have the fundamental 
idea of the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν indicated and its marvelous effects 
clearly described. We shall begin with the latter. 

The putting on of Christ (εἰ... σὺ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐνδέδυσαι) effects 
in us: 

a) The possessing of the Son of God in us—rov Υἱὸν ἔχων ἐν 
ἑαυτῷ, or in other words the indwelling of Him in us, which, of 
course, implies a most intimate and real union with Christ. Being 
united with us, Christ 

Ὁ) Conforms us to Himself—«xai πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀφομοιωθεὶς ; we 
become other Christs. And Chrysostom immediately adds in what 
respect we are conformed to Christ, in what respect we are other 
Christs. Here again he determines the nature of our conformity 
with Christ which is effected by the ἐνδύεσθαι, in accordance with 
the context of Paul, who wishes to show that the Galatians are 
sons of God. Therefore, Chrysostom adds, εἰς μίαν συγγένειαν καὶ μίαν 
ἰδέαν ἤχθης. Thou hast been brought into one relationship and one 
nature with Him. 

But these blessings come to us only if we have first put on 
Christ—ei . . σὺ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐνδέδυσαι. In what does the act of the 
ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν which takes place in Baptism, consist? It is not 
expressly stated, but it can be easily inferred. Evidently here 
again Christ is regarded as a superior power, yes, as the highest 
power, the Son of God (εἰ yap ὁ Χριστὸς Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ), who has 
dominion over us and exercises it by uniting us to Him and con- 
forming us to Him, making us sons of God on condition that we 
have put Him on—«i . . . ov δὲ αὐτὸν ἐνδέδυσαι. The ἐνδύεσθαι itself 
here can only mean to give oneself up to the power of Christ, to 
become His possession and to pass under His power by Baptism 
and consequently to partake of His nature. 

Here then we have precisely the same explanation of the 
Pauline formula as in Chrysostom’s seamen on Rom. XIII, 

25 Migne, P. G., 61, 656. 

26 That ἰδέα = nature or essence is clear from its identification with 


ῥοῤφή in the explanation of the next verse; μορφή undoubtedly = nature, 
essence; see below. 


48 


14, with the exception that in this case our conformity with Christ 
is explained, not as an assimilation of Christ’s virtues, but as a 
participation of His nature. In both cases, the nature of the 
conformity is determined by the context of the phrase. 

Commenting on the following verse of the Epistle (Gal. III, 
28), Chrysostom, not only emphatically repeats and elucidates our 
participation in Christ’s nature, but adds a further effect thereof ; 
namely, that we are all one in Christ—the Christians by Baptism 
become the possession of Christ so completely that they are all 
one in Christ. After quoting the words of St. Paul: “There is 
neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is 
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”’— 
πάντες yap ὑμεῖς eis ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Incov—Chrysostom exclaims in 
admiration of the mystery: Dost thou see the insatiable soul ?— 
Εἶδες ψυχὴν ἀκόρεστον. He then explains the ground for his admira- 
tion: Paul was not content with pronouncing the great and won- 
derful truth: we are made children of God by faith, but he tries 
to find something more exact to show with greater clearness our 
closer oneness with Christ—rjyw ἐγγυτέραν πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν ἕνωσιν." ἷ 

Here we have the emphatic statement that the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν 
spells a more intimate union with Christ than the “being born of 
God.” 

But Chrysostom continues: And when he has said αὐτὸν 
ἐνεδύσασθε, he is not even content with this expression; but he ex- 
plains it and penetrates more deeply into this union—évdorépw 
πρόεισι τῆς τοιαύτης συναφείας, Saying: You are all one in Christ 
Jesus; i.e., you all. have one nature, one image, namely that of 
Christ—piay μορφὴν, ἕνα τύπον ἔχετε πάντες τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ." ὃ 

As is undoubtedly proved by H. Schumacher,?® the word μορφῆ 
in St. Paul and the Greek Fathers means the nature of a thing.*° 
In this passage μορφῇ can mean only the divine nature of Christ, 
for the participation in His human nature is had prior to the 
ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν and is no “horrendum mysterium.” | 

_ After declaring that we have received the nature and the image 
of Christ, the Son of God, Chrysostom, filled with wonder and 

27 Migne, P. G. 61, 656. 


28 [bid. 

29 Christus in seiner Préexistenz und Kenose. 

80 Especially when used of spiritual things this term can not mean any- 
thing but nature. Chrysostom likewise uses μορφή in this sense. For 
instance, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians (II, 6), he 
says that the μορφή of the servant means the nature of man and the 
of God, the nature of God: φύσει ἅνθρωπος, ἡ μορφὴ τοῦ δούλου---φύσει Θεὸς, 
καὶ ἡ μορφὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ͵ (Migne, P. G., 62, 220.) 


49 


awe at the greatness of this mystery, exclaims: What can be more 
awful (φρικωδέστερον) than these words? And he explains again 
what he understands by this “horrendum mysterium.” He that 
was a Greek and a Jew and a slave before, now goes about having 
the nature, not of an angel or archangel, but of the Lord of all, 
and showing forth Christ in himself —dA2’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πάντων Δεσπότου 
τὴν μορφὴν ἔχων περιέρχεται, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ δεικνὺς τὸν Χριστόν. In other 
words, man, by putting on Christ in Baptism, becomes another 
Christ ; he receives the nature of Christ, the Son of God and Lord 
of all; he becomes a son of God. This, however, is not mere 
figurative language, but it is a “horrendum mysterium,” which 
points to an awful reality. 

In the following verse (Gal. III, 29), Paul shows that ἐνδύεσθαι 
means to become Christ’s property, to come into His possession 
and power. For he says, “If you are Christ’s—ei δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, 
then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.” Χριστοῦ 
is here the “genetivus possessionis” and expresses possession. But 
nowhere in the context does Paul say that the Galatians are 
Christ’s property, but merely that they “put on Christ.” The εἶναι 
Χριστοῦ then must follow from the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν, which can 
only mean, to become Christ’s property, to come into His posses- 
sion and under His power. 

It is of the utmost importance to note that the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν, 
as here explained, takes place, according to Paul’s express words, 
in Baptism. When we are baptized into Christ, he says, we be- 
come His property; we pass into His possession and under His 
dominion; and He exercises His power over us by giving us His 


poppy. 


3. To ΒΕ Born ΟΕ Gop, A “HorrENpUM MysTERIUM” 


According to St. John Chryostom, as we have noted above, 
the words Χριστόν ἐνεδύσασθε express a more awful mystery than 
the expression ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθητε. We shall be able to under- 
stand this mystery better if we compare with the exegesis given 
of it above Chrysostom’s explanation of our birth from God. In 
his commentary on the words of St. John I, 12: “But as many as 
received Him, He gave them the power to be made sons of God,” 
he gives a clear exposition of this grand truth; by our birth from 
God, he tells us, we receive the nature of God and (the impression 
of) His image. 

31 Migne, P. G. 62, 656. 


δ0 


First, by a long enumeration, he emphasizes the fact that all, 
regardless of their national or individual characteristics, were 
made worthy of the same honor.*? Then he specifies the nature 
of this honor and mentions at the same time its cause. For the 
faith, he says, and the grace of the Spirit having taken away the 
inequality arising from worldly honors, shaped all into one nature 
—eis μίαν ἅπαντες ἔπλασε μορφὴν and molded all into the one image 
of the King—eis ἕνα ἀνετύπωσε χαρακτῆρα τον βασιλικόν. 

In the following passage, he tells us that to receive the μορφῆ 
and χαρακτήρ of the King means to be born of God, to be made His 
sons. To show more clearly the excellence of the benefit we have 
received and the goodness of God in bestowing it on us, he con- 
trasts God with an earthly king, who deems it beneath his dignity 
to have slaves as his soldiers ; but, he continues, the only begotten 
Son of God did not disdain to enrol publicans and magi and slaves 
and the most ignoble of all men,—even many who are bodily 
crippled and mutilated,—in the ranks of His sons—eis τὸν τῶν τέκνων 
καταλέξαι χορόν. 5 

The enrolment in the ranks of sons of God,—the receiving of 
the μορφῇ and χαρακτήρ of the King,—is not an empty and mean- 
ingless ceremony. It is not merely an external adoption, but an 
adoption that spells a deep and wondrous internal change in man. 
The nature of this change Chrysostom describes by means of a 
comparison and he mentions also the historic fact by which it 
takes place. As the nature of fire, he says, directly it comes in 
contact with mineral ore, immediately changes the ore into gold; 
in like manner, but in a far greater degree, does Baptism make 
those who are washed golden instead of earthen, for the Spirit 
at that time comes into our souls and consumes the image (εἰκόνα) 
of earth and restores the image (εἰκόνα) of heaven cast anew and 
brilliant and glittering, as it were, from the smelting furnace.** 

This whole passage shows what a sublime truth our birth from 
God is. Elsewhere*® Chrysostom expressly calls it a great and 
sublime truth (δόγμα), and its sublime character makes it a mys- 
tery. No one, he declares, can explain the manner of that 
wonderful generation that takes place through Baptism.** Al- 
though the expression “to be born of God” contains a grand and 


82 Migne, P. G., 59, 75. 

38 Migne, P. G., 50, 75. 

84 Migne, P. G., 50, 75, 76. 
85 Migne, P. G., 59, 146. 

36 bid. 


δ1 


awful mystery, still, says Chrysostom, the words, Χριστόν ἐνεδύσασθε, 
express something even more awful and mysterious. What is it? 
Both phrases, as we have seen, mean that we receive the μορφῇ of 
Christ ; we become sons of God. In so far then the phrases are 
synonymous and equally mysterious. But the words Χριστόν 
ἐνεδύσασθε contain an additional truth not expressed in the phrase 
ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ éeyervnOyte—it is the greater oneness (ἐγγυτέρα ἕνωσις) 
with Christ, which is the effect of our being completely the prop- 
erty and possession of Christ and consists in our actual possession 
of Christ or His real indwelling in us (τὸν Yiov ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ). 
Herein consists the more awful mystery. 


Conclusion and Summary 


Summarizing the results of the explanation of ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν 
in Gal. III, 27, we note: 

1. The “induere Christum” takes place in Baptism. 

2. It is a “horrendum mysterium,” which was said already in 
the exposition of Rom. XIII, 14. 

3. This phrase expresses a more awful mystery than the words 
“to be born of God.” 

4. The “induere Christum” = 

a) to give oneself up to the possession and power of Christ, 
to become the property of Christ, in consequence of which 

b) He unites the Christian most intimately with Himself 
by dwelling in him, 

_ 6) He conforms the Christian to Himself by communi- 

cating to him His μορφή, by making him the son of God; 

therefore 
d) All Christians become Christ’s possession so completely 
that they are made εἷς in Christ; all have His μορφή. 

5. What makes the Χριστόν ἐνεδύσασθε more awful and mys- 
terious than the ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθητε, is the greater oneness— 
ἐγγυτέρα évwors—it effects, which is the result of our being com- 
pletely the property of Christ and consists in our actually pos- 
sessing Him or His real indwelling in us. 

6. The expositions of ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν in Gal. III, 27, and in 
Rom. XIII, 14, are identical, except: 

a) In Gal. III, 27, Baptism is expressly mentioned as the 
historical fact by which the ἐνδύεσθαι is effected. 
b) In Rom. XIII, 14, love is emphasized as the reason for 

Christ’s exercise of power over us, who are His possession. 


52 


c) In Rom. XIII, 14, the conformity with Christ, which 
is the effect of the ἐνδύεσθαι, regards the virtues of Christ ; the 
Christians should be other Christs by the assimilation of His 
virtues, Christ should be visible in their deeds. 

d) In Gal. III, 27, the conformity regards the nature of 
Christ ; the Christians are other Christs by the participation 
of Christ’s divine nature; they show Christ in their nature. 
In both cases the nature of the conformity with Christ is deter- 
mined by the context in which the phrase, ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is 
used. 


CHAPTER III 


HISTORICO-LITERARY INVESTIGATION OF 
ENAYEIN-ENAYES@AI 

We have seen how Chrysostom explains the phrase ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν and further illustrates and confirms it by the use of a 
Greek proverb. Of the few exegetes who take cognizance of this 
illustration, Zahn and Bloomfield object to it. Zahn does not posi- 
tively reject Chrysostom’s explanation, but merely says that the 
phrase used in illustration of the formula ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν by 
Chrysostom “gehdért vielleicht einem bereits christlich gefarbten 
Sprachgebrauch an” ; in other words, it is a result of a Christian 
tendency. 

What is the truth concerning this tendency? Viewed in its 
true light, the existence of such a tendency does not constitute an 
objection to the explanation given by Chrysostom of. ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν, but it is rather a powerful confirmation thereof. For, if 
the use of the phrase 6 δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα ἐνεδύσατο, as an expression of 
friendship, in the sense in which it was explained by Chrysostom, 
should have originated from the Pauline formula through the 
influence of a Christian tendency, it would be a splendid and im- 
portant testimony of the understanding of St. Paul’s words by the 
Christians of the first three centuries of our era. This testimony 
would be all the more decisive since this specific meaning was 
supposedly given to a common and well-known phrase by men 
who wrote and spoke the same language as the Apostle, and were, 
therefore, good judges of the meaning of the latter’s phrase. 

This interpretation of ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is a strong confirma- 
tion of the assumption that Paul penned his words in the current 
meaning of the phrase ἐνδύεσθαί τινα. For, as we have already re- 
marked and as we shall presently show, the expression was not 
coined by St. Paul, but it was in vogue before his time. But the 
use of the phrase by the Apostle in Rom. XIII, 14, and Gal. ITI, 
27, could hardly have been sufficient to give rise to a proverbial 
saying that was understood in a meaning essentially different from 


1 Brief an d. Gal., 187. 
δ8 


54 


that which was attached to the original phrase, and to which the 
people were accustomed. 

Bloomfield’s objection is of a more serious nature. He con- 
tends that the “common phrase” adduced by Chrysostom in ex- 
planation of the Pauline formula “is scarcely apposite.”? The idea 
expressed by the proverb, he adds in his commentary to Rom. 
XIII, 14, “is quite different with that here meant to be inculcated 
by the Apostle, which only implies wmitation of our Lord.” He 
concludes with the remark referred to in our first chapter, that 
“in the numerous other passages” found in Greek literature and 
“cited by the Philological Commentators of ἐνδύεσθαι, ἀποδύεσθαι, 
induere, exuere, there is no more than a slight allusion to conduct 
considered figuratively, as a dress.”* This is indeed a serious 
objection, and if it is true, then Chrysostom’s interpretation of the 
Pauline formula is, if not positively false, at least foreign to Greek 
usage. Like Bloomfield, other exegetes who think the phrase of 
the Apostle is of Greek origin, interpret it in the sense of mere 
imitation of conduct. Although, as we have noted, other com- 
mentators who base their interpretation of our formula on the 
use of the phrase ἐνδύεσθαί twa, explain the Apostle’s words as 
denoting imitation of internal dispositions and even union, still 
none admit that the words express the idea of possession. What 
then does the history of the phrase reveal about its real meaning? 


I, MEANING OF ENAYEIN AccorDING To LEXICOGRAPHERS 

If we turn to lexicographers, we can obtain no clear and definite 
results as to the meaning of ἐνδύεσθαι. According to Liddell-Scott* 
ἐνδύω means, I, “to go into” and is used: 

a) “of clothes,” in the sense of “to put on.” 

b) in the meaning of to “enter, press into.”—As an example 
of the metaphorical use of ἐνδύεσθαι with a personal object, these 
authors refer to the phrase τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον ἐνδυόμενοι which 
means “assume (the person of) T.”—2. Ἐνδύω, these authors 
further state, may have a casual signification, “to put on another.” 

Menge® says that ἐνδύω when used transitively signifies “in 
etw. einhiillen, jm. ein Kleid anlegen od. anziehen”; when used © 
intransitively, however, and in the middle voice, it means: 

“a) sich etwas anziehen—sich mit etw. waffnen, 

“b) hinein=gehen,=schliipfen, . . . dringen,= geraten.” 

2 Recensio synop. Annot. Sacr., V1, 161. 

8 1614. 


* Greek-Eng. Lex., 408. 
5 Griech.-deutsch. Warterbuch, I, 238. 


55 


Pape® gives the same meanings of this verb as Menge. He 
adds several examples of the metaphorical use of the verb; when 
used figuratively é&dio—etwas “unternehmen,” “sich,” etwas 
“unterziehen” ; while the phrase τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον évdvdpevor = 
“den T. anlegen, d.i., sich wie Τὶ benehmen.” 

According to Benseler,’ ἐνδύω in its figurative meaning = 
“eindringen, sich einlassen, sich einschleichen.” In the N. T., the 
metaphorical use of the word signifies “sich anziehen.” 

The result of this brief review is not satisfactory. We see that 
the lexicographers as well as the exegetes do not agree with Chrys- 
ostom in explaining this important term. Who is right? And how 
can we solve the difficulty? The great authority of Chrysostom, 
who still lived in the milieu in which St. Paul wrote, and who was 
thoroughly conversant with the peculiarities of his native tongue, 
would go far to establish the meaning of ἐνδύεσθαι in the sense in 
which he explains the word. But he does not ask us to accept his 
interpretation merely on his authority; he himself gives us the 
key to a definite and certain solution of the problem. By using a 
Greek proverb in illustration of the Pauline formula, he not only 
points to the Hellenic literature as the source whence Paul derived 
his formula and whence he himself took his explanation of it, but 
at the same time he suggests the method by which we may prove 
the correctness of his exposition, namely by a historio-literary 
investigation of the term ἐνδύεσθαι. Therefore, in order to estab- 
lish beyond the shadow of a doubt the meaning of Paul’s phrase, 
we shall in the following pages examine the original meaning of 
ἐνδύεσθαι and trace the historical development of the phrase in 
Hellenic literature, paying special attention to the metaphorical 
use of the word as well as to its use with a personal object. In 
our investigation it will be of the utmost importance to note the 
similarities with, or the differences from, the meaning attributed 
to the phrase by Chrysostom. Such an investigation will set forth 
the meaning of Paul’s words in a clearer light, and, if it results 
in a confirmation of Chrysostom’s exposition, it will prove defi- 
nitely and with certainty that his interpretation of the Apostle’s 
words is the only correct one. 

Since ἐνδύω is composed of ἐν + δύω, an inquiry into the original 
meaning and use of the simple component δύω-δύομαι will be emi- 
nently useful, if not absolutely necessary, in order to establish the 


6 Handworterbuch d. Griech. Sprache, I, 732. 
7 Griech.-deutsch. Schul-W érterbuch, 258. 


56 


precise meaning of ἐνδύω-ἐνδύομαι. For the compound is only a 
further development of the simple component and receives its 
meaning from the latter.. Moreover, the letter does not create the 
idea ; but the idea forms the letter. We may add that, according 
to lexicographers, the meaning and the use of δύω are similar to 
those of ἐνδύω. These authors agree that the literal meaning of 
δύω is “to enter.’’® 


II, (EN)AYEIN-(EN)AYES@AI IN THE HELLENIC WorLD 
1. AYO AND ENAYQ In HoMER 

Already in Homer we find the use of Svev or δύεσθαι. In his 
epics, the word is frequently employed in its strictly literal mean- 
ing, in a naive material sense, implying a local motion of persons 
or bodies by which they go from one place to another and enter 
physically into, and are enclosed by, some thing or place. This 
idea is expressed, in the first place, by dvew or δύεσθαι followed by 
the simple accusative of the thing or place entered. Thus Homer 
speaks of persons entering a city, the walls of a city, the bosom of 
the sea, and the earth. | 

For instance, Athena comes to meet Odysseus when he is about 
to enter the beautiful city of Scheria—daan’ ὅτε δὴ ap’ ἔμελλε πόλιν 
δύεσθαι ἐραννῆν. . 

When the parents of Hector entreat him to seek safety within 
the walls he refuses and says: Woe be to me! if I indeed entered 
within the gates and walls—® μοι ἐγών, εἰ μέν κε πύλας καὶ τείχεα δύω.᾽ 

In JI. 18, 140, Thetis, the sea goddess, tells the Nereids, sea 
nymphs, to enter into the broad bosom of the deep—ipeis μὲν viv 
δῦτε θαλάσσης εὐρέα KoArov."* 

When Axylus and his attendant Calesius are killed in the 
battle of Troy, both enter the earth—ro δ᾽ ἄμφω γαῖαν ἐδύτην.᾽} 

_ Andromache, the wife of Hector, pleads with her husband not 
to expose himself to the danger of death. For, she says, it were 
better for me to enter the earth (1.¢., to die) if I am to be deprived 
of thee—époi δέ xe κέρδιον εἴη σεῦ ἀφαμαρτούσῃ χθόνα dipevar.** | 

In Homer we also find δύειν-δύεσθαι used with the simple accusa- 
tive to express the idea of clothing or arming oneself. In his 

8 Cfr. Liddell-Scott, Greek-Eng. Lex., 398; Menge, Griech.-deutsch. 


Worterbuch, I, 196 


9 Od., 7, 18. 
107],, 22, 00. 
11 J],, 18, 140. 
12 Π]., 6, το. 
413 J]., 6, 411. 


57 


epics, the phrase δύειν χιτῶνα," and expressions like δύειν-δύεσθαι 
τεύχεα,᾽" Svew xuvéenv,'® or δύεσθαι νώροπα xaAxov,** recur several times. 

In a similar manner, Homer frequently employs δύειν-δύεσθαι to 
express the sinking of the stars and especially of the sun.1* The 
word in this connection is apparently used absolutely, but the sea 
as the object is understood.’® 

Δύειν-δύεσθαι is found in Homer in its naive material sense also 
with the preposition eis or és, thus expressing more emphatically 
the local motion by which the subject of the verb enters into the 
object. 

The horse of Gerenian Nestor, which was shot in the head, 
rears in torture, for the arrow has entered the brain—Bédos δ᾽ εἰς 
ἐγκέφαλον 8.7 

Ino, after giving the shipwrecked Odysseus a wimple, where- 
with he might swim safely to shore, goes back into the surging sea 
—airn δ᾽ ἂψ és πόντον ἐδύσετο κυμαίνοντα." 

Again, Odysseus says that if those who have slain the kine of 
the Sun do not make fit atonement, he will go into Hades and 
shine among the dead—®vaopai eis ᾿Αίδαο καὶ ἐν νεκύεσσι φαείνω."2 

In the same manner, δύειν-δύεσθαι with eis or és and ἐν or éu— 
which originally meant the same as eis or és—is used with regard 
to armor. In the Jliad and the Odyssey, we find the expressions 
dvew és τεύχεα," δύεσθαι ἐν revyeoor"* and ὅπλοισιν ἐνι Sevoiow Svev.** 

From the foregoing examples of δύειν-δύεσθαι, used either alone 
or with the prepositions εἰς or ἐν, it is clear that the Greeks con- 
ceived the act of clothing or of arming oneself, expressed by δύειν- 
δύεσθαι, as an entering into a garment or armor. 

What conclusion can we draw from the foregoing examples 
taken from Homer? 

a) Some expressions are so pploriess that from them we can 
not conclude anything as to the meaning of ἐνδύεσθαι. Thus, when 
it is said that Odysseus is about to enter the city, δύεσθαι has πο 

14 J]., 18, 416; Od., 15, 61. 

15 J], 6, 340; 3, 328; 17, 202. 


16 I1., 5, 845. 
17 J], 2, 578; 11, 16. 


18 J], 18, 241; Od., 2, 388; 3 

19 Cfr, Liddell- Scott, OP. a8 eee Pape, Op. cit., I, ὁρᾷ 
20 J]., 8, 85. 

21 Od., 5, 352. 


24 Od., 24, 
25 7},, 10, 254; 10, 272. 


58 


special characteristic. The idea expressed is merely the motion 
from one place to another, and consequently the ceasing to be in 
one place and the beginning to be in another. But even this is 
interesting enough. 

b) Likewise, in the phrases—the arrow enters into the brain 
and Hector enters within the gates and walls, the dvew of itself has 
no distinctive meaning. The fundamental idea expressed by this 
verb is here again the moving from one place to another, the ceas- | 
ing to exist in one place and the beginning to exist in another. In 
both phrases, however, the idea of power is apparent. But this 
idea is strictly speaking not expressed in δύειν. For, in the one 
case, the power to wound or kill is in the arrow; and in the other, 
the power to protect is in the gates and the walls. Still neither 
the arrow nor the gates and the walls can exercise this power 
except through the dvev: the arrow can not wound or kill unless 
it enters the body ; and the gates and walls can not afford protec- 
tion unless Hector gets behind them. Avew in these phrases seems 
to be connected with the idea of power in the sense of to exercise 
power, or to be subject to power, respectively. And this idea of 
power is predominant over that of motion. Likewise, it may be 
noted, that in these phrases dvew expresses, not so much the idea 
of ceasing to be in one place and beginning to be in another, but 
rather the idea of ceasing to be in a certain state or condition and 
of beginning to be in another. : 

c) More characteristic are the expressions δύειν-δύεσθαι χιτῶνα, 
τεύχεα. Here again the basic idea is the moving from one place to 
another. But this idea does not stand in the foreground. Avew- 
δύεσθαι here emphasizes, not the motion from one place to another, 
but the action by which the person receives a new outward appear- 
ance from the object,—the garment or the armor. The question 
is whether such an effect on the subject (which implies the idea of 
the exercise of a quasi power) is intimately and permanently or 
only accidentally connected with δύειν-δύεσθαι and ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι. 
The characteristic must be noted at all events. 

d) Stillmore distinctive are the expressions to enter the earth, 
the sea, Hades. Here, too, the fundamental idea is: to move from 
one place, noionly to another, but into another ; to cease to be in 
one place and begin to be in another ; to leave the former and to be 
united with th: latter. But something more is connoted: the 
“terminus ad qtrm” is a place that surrounds and encloses and, 
as it were, holds tie subject, takes possession of it, and controls it. 


59 


Thus, for instance, when the Nereids enter the sea, the idea is 
implied that their action is modified by, and according to, the 
nature of the sea; they pass under its dominion. 

When Axylus and Calesius are said to enter the earth, not 
merely the going from the one place to the other is expressed but 
the passing under death’s dominion,—generally speaking, the pass- 
ing under the dominion of something else. Consequently, here 
again δύειν implies, not only the ceasing to be in one place and the 
beginning to be in another, but the ceasing to be in one state or 
condition and the beginning to be in another ; and this new exist-. 
ence is effected by the power of that which is “entered.” 

Especially striking is the example of Andromache. She would 
rather give herself up to the other place, 1.6., to the dominion of 
the earth, 1.6., death, than be deprived of Hector. Here a further 
parallel is to be noted. As before she was the property of Hector, 
so now she would be the property of Hades. The important ques- 
tion is: Is this idea of possession and power only accidentally 
connected with δύειν, or does a general, a permanent, connection 
exist between the two? 

From the foregoing investigation we can draw the following 
conclusions : 

a) The fundamental idea expressed by δύειν or δύεσθαι is the 
moving from one place to another and consequently 

b) The ceasing to be in one place or one state and the begin- 
ning to be in another place or state; this last idea implies usually 

c) The power and dominion of the subject of the verb over the 
object or vice versa, in consequence of which 

d) The weaker element is changed; this change usually con- 
forms the weaker element to the stronger. 

6) In the foregoing examples 8vew and δύεσθαι show no differ- 
ence in meaning since they are used promiscuously. 

A slight development of the naive material sense of δύειν-δύεσθαι 
and ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι is to be noted in the following examples. 
Nestor tells the wounded Agamemnon, I do not counsel that we 
should enter the battle, for it is not meet that a wounded man 
should fight—-roAepuov δ'οὐκ ἄμμε κελεύω δύμεναι' οὐ γάρ πως βεβλημένον 
ἔστι μαχέσθαι." 5 

In a similar sense, Homer uses ἐνδύεσθαι or ἐσδύεσθαι. Achilles 
giving a prize to the aged Nestor says: Now I give thee this prize 


26 J]., 14, 63. 


60 


unwon, for thou wilt not wield the cestus, nor wrestle, nor enter 
the javelin contest—ovdé τ᾽ ἀκοντισὺν ἐσδύσεαι."ἷ | 

In these examples, δύειν and ἐσδύεσθαι or ἐνδύεσθαι are used, not 
in their most strictly literal meaning, implying physical entrance 
of the subject into an object by which it is enveloped, but in the 
sense of participating in. We have here the first visible progress 
from the naive material expression. In the former example, “to 
enter the battle” is evidently equivalent to the phrase “to fight” ; 
whereas “to enter a contest” means the same as “to contend.” 
Now, if a person takes part in a battle or contest he 

a) Goes from one place to another, and consequently he 

b) Ceases to be in the place and state in which he was and 
begins to be in a new state or condition. This implies 

c) A surrendering of the subject to the power and control of 
the object, 

d) A change in the subject according to the task and the 
requirements of the object. 

It is worthy of note that, in proportion as the strictly literal 
meaning of δύειν-δύεσθαι and ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι is lost, the idea of 
power and possession projects itself. The question here is again: 
Are the self-surrender of the subject to the power of the object 
and the former’s consequent change only accidentally connected 
with the verb? Here we note that the II aorist active is used like 
the middle in the sense, “to give oneself up to the power of.” 

In Homer we, moreover, find δύεσθαι followed by εἰς and a per- 
sonal object. Here again the giving up of oneself to the superior 
power of another is strongly emphasized. In a battle against the 
Trojans, Teucer, the archer, takes his stand beneath the shield 
of Ajax. Ajax stealthily withdraws the shield and Teucer spies 
his chance; and when he has shot and hit one of the enemy, he 
returns, and as a child behind its mother, he enters into Ajax, 
who hides him with his shining shield— 

αὐτὰρ 6 αὖτις ἰὼν πάις ὃς ὑπὸ μητέρα δύσκεν 
εἰς Αἴανθ᾽- ὁ δέ μιν σάκει κρύπτασκε φανεινῷ." 
In the phrase δύσκεν εἰς Αἴανθ᾽ there is evidently expressed: 

a) The going from one place to another ; | 

b) Union with the new place; Teucer gets as closely as pos- 
sible to Ajax ; this implies further the 

c) Surrender to the power of Ajax, which has as its effect the 


27 Jl., 23, 622. Some edtions have ἐνδύσεαι͵ 
28 Il., 8, 271-272. 


61 


ἃ) Protection of Teucer. 

e) Teucer not only ceases to be in one place and begins to be 
in another place, but he also begins to be in a new state or condi- 
tion, namely, of protection, which again is the result of his coming 
under the power of Ajax. 

f) The picture of the child running behind its mother may 
suggest the confident surrender of Teucer to the power of Ajax. 
But this is only a picture, and that specific idea may not be ex- 
pressed in ἐνδύεσθαι. 

The question again presents itself: Is the idea of possession 
and power here only accidentally connected with δύειν-δύεσθαι and 
évdvew-évdveca: or do these words themselves imply it? The fact 
that the words always appear in the same complex of ideas sug- 
gests that these ideas are inherent in them. 

A further development of δύαν. δύεσθαι and ἐνδύειν- ἐνδύεσθαι is 
found in the expressions in which Homer speaks of dispositions 
and passions as entering into man. Menge and Pape, in their 
dictionaries, mark these phrases as aa of the metaphorical 
use of the respective words. 

Athena is said to allow the haughty suitors of Odysseus’s wife 
to give free vent to their biting scorn, for she wishes greater pain 
to enter the heart of Odysseus—dé¢p’ ἔτι μᾶλλον δύη ἄχος κραδίην 
Λαερτιάδεω Ὀδυσῆος." 

Again, when Achilles looks at the armor Thetis has brought 
to him, still greater fury enters into him—ds εἶδ᾽, ὥς μιν μᾶλλον ἔδυ 
᾿ χόλος. 9 

Another example: Odysseus tells Achilles that Hector does 
not reverence at all either men or gods, but that great madness 
has entered into him—xparepy δέ ἑ λύσσα S€8uxev.*4 

These examples are remarkable. The predominant feature 
is that these passions take possession of man; although the ex- 
pression “to take possession” is not used, still a proper analysis of 
the text demands this interpretation. In these examples, δύειν is a 
strong and emphatic word that expresses: 

a) The moving from one place to another, and especially 

b) The possession and control of the passion over the person, 
which has as its effect 

c) The change of the person in conformity with the passion. 

πὰ ἥδ: 18, 347-348. 


10, I 16 
“ sii , 9, 230. 


In some of the examples, this change is then described. Since 
in these examples the passions are regarded as the stronger and 
consequently controlling factor, δύειν here means to take possession 
of and not to surrender to the power of. 

The idea of the control and possession of man by the passion 
is brought out with surprising clearness and force in the following 
example, which is found in the fifth book of the Iliad, v. 811-812. 
Athena tells Tydeus that she stands beside him and guards him 
and with all her heart bids him fight the Trojans; yet, she adds: 
Either weariness of much striving has entered into thy limbs, or 
at least disheartening terror has taken hold of thee— 

ἀλλά σευ ἢ κάματος πολυᾶιξ γυῖα δέδυκεν, 
ἤ νύ σέ που δέος ἴσχει ἀκῆριον. 

Here we have the solution of the mysterious meaning of δύειν- 
δύεσθαι and ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι by the identification of dvew with ἔσχειν. 
Δύειν in these contexts means to take possession. Besides, it is 
clear from this passage that the idea of possession and control 
expressed in the preceding examples is, not merely accidentally, 
but permanently and essentially connected with δύειν-δύεσθαι. This 
result is of the greatest importance. 

Also in Iliad, ἐνδύειν is used to express the possession and con- 
trol of man by a passion. In this example, however, ἐν is separated 
from δύειν by tmesis. Homer describes the distress of Achilles 
over the death of Patroclus. Into his heart, he says, intolerable 
anguish has entered—éy δέ of ἦτορ div’ ἄχος ἄτλητον. *? 

A striking example of the use of δύειν in the sense of taking 
possession is found in the seventeenth book of the Iliad (v. 210- 
212). When Hector puts on the armor of Patroclus, Ares, the 
dread war god, enters into him, i.e., takes possession of him, and his 
limbs are filled with valor and strength—do δέ pw ᾿Άρης δεινὸς 
ἐνυάλιος, πλῆσθεν δ᾽ ἄρ οἱ μέλε᾽ ἐντὸς ἀλκῆς καὶ σθένεος. 

Perhaps such an example can be fully understood only in the 
light of ancient mythological and demonological views. The 
ancients not only regarded concrete material objects as deities, but 
even conceived the various dispositions that affect man for good 
or for evil as good or bad demons, which enter physically into 
man and operate in him. ‘Was den Menschen plagt und angstigt,” 
says Dieterich, “was ihn verunreinigt und hemmt, sind bose 


82 J]. το, 366-367. Damm, however, takes ἦτορ to be the subject, and 
renders the phrase “induebat dolorem, quasi gravem vestem aut grave 
spiculum”; cfr. Nov. Lex., Graec., I. The phrase in either case implies 
possession. 


68 


Damonen, die materiell an und in ihm sitzen; was er leistet, 
handelt, was ihn treibt und starkt, sind gute Damonen, die in ihm 
wohnen und wirken. Durch die Leibesoffnungen,” he continues, 
“gehen sie ein und aus, werden herein-und herausgezwungen, 
werden zitiert und ausgetrieben.” In these words the author 
briefly characterizes this primitive belief, which, he says, we find 
among all “Naturvélkern,” and which still survives “in festgewor- 
denen z.T. abgegriffenen Bildern bei allen Kulturvolkern, ohne 
dass sie noch ins Bewusstsein treten.”** 

This view gives us a powerful illustration of the development 
Of δύειν-δύεσθαι and ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι from its naive material sense 
to its metaphorical meaning. For originally madness, fury, and 
the like, were conceived also by the Greeks as demons that entered 
physically into man and dominated him. Later when this belief 
no longer prevailed, the same expression was preserved but taken 
metaphorically. 

In the examples cited above, dispositions and passions are con- 
ceived as entering into man. It is of great interest and impor- 
tance to note that Homer reverses this expression and speaks of 
man as entering into dispositions or qualities. An example of 
this latter phrase is found in the Jliad. Odysseus tells Achilles, 
who out of wrath against Agamemnon has refused to fight, that 
the Greeks dread a very great disaster at the hands of the Trojans. 
Now it is doubtful, he says, whether we shall save the well-benched 
ships or behold them perish, if thou enterest not into valor—ei μὴ 
σύ ye δύσεαι ἀλκὴν. This expression, like the phrase “madness 
entered Hector,” which occurs in the same passage, undoubtedly 
implies domination and control of the person by the respective 
passion. An apparent difficulty is created by the difference in the 
grammatical construction of the two phrases. In the expression 
“madness entered Hector,” the object is possessed and controlled 
by the subject ; whereas in the phrase “Achilles should enter into 
valor,” the subject is represented as being in the possession and 
under the control of the object. This difficulty can be easily 
solved. For in both cases, as the law of language itself demands, 
the verb describes the action of the subject. Accordingly, in the 
former phrase, madness is described as taking possession and 
gaining control of Hector ; while in the latter expression, Achilles 
himself gives himself up to the possession and domination of 


83 Mithrasliturgie, 98-99. 
34 J]. 9, 231. 


64 


valor. In the one case, then, the passion takes control; in the 
other, the person passes under the control of the passion. 

It is to be noted that in the examples suggesting possession 
and control of man by passion, the active voice is used ; whereas, 
in the last example, in which the verb means that man gives him- 
self up to the control of might, the middle is used. This seems to 
point to the probability that the Greek mind knew of a distinction 
between the meanings here expressed by the active and the middle. 
We have to keep this in mind for our investigation to find out 
whether this supposition holds good. 

To sum up, the phrase under discussion clearly expresses: 

a) The moving of Achilles from one place to another, or 
rather 

b) The ceasing to be in one state or condition and ste entering 
into another condition, which includes 

c) The giving over of himself by Achilles to the possession and 
power of valor, and consequently 

d) A change in Achilles effected by, and according to, the 
object—valor ; he should be, as it were, the personification of valor. 

Since Homer uses δύειν-δύεσθαι of man in connection with armor 
and garments, which not only SAVEIOD, but, as it were, give their 
form to the person that “enters into” them, it would seem that 
Homer derived this metaphorical expression from the figure of 
a garment. This assumption acquires greater probability from 
Homer’s use of the cognate expression ἕννυσθαι or ἐπιέννυσθαι ἀλκῆν. 
Thus he describes the Ajaces as clothed with impetuous valor— 
Αἴαντες θοῦριν ἐπιειμένοι ἀλκὴν. Likewise he says the heart of 
Achilles is clothed with valor—AyAes—¢peciv εἱμένος adAxnv.*® 

It will hardly be denied that the words ἕννυσθαι or ἐπιέννυσθαι 
ἀλκῆν are equivalent to the phrase δύεσθαι ἀλκῆν. “ἕννυσθαι or 
ἐπιέννυσθαι means, in the first place, to clothe, to envelop. The 
conception of valor in the expression “Achilles should enter into 
valor,” as a garment, accords perfectly with the explanation we 
have given. For, if a person enters into a garment, he not only 
moves, as it were, from one place to another, but he freely gives 
himself over to the quasi possession of the garment, which changes 
his outward appearance. 

Having investigated in detail the use and the meaning of δύειν- 
δύεσθαι and ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι in Homer, we shall now proceed to 


85 J], 8, 262. 
847}, 20, 381. Compare the expressions in J1., 1, 149: ἀναιδείην ἐπιειμένε, 


65 


examine the meaning and the use of these words in later authors. 
In our investigation, we shall pay special attention to such phrases 
as may throw further light on the original meaning of évdvew- 
ἐνδύεσθαι and on its historical development, especially in a figurative 
sense. 


2. METAPHORICAL USE oF AYEIN IN AESCHYLUS 


In Aeschylus’s (b. 525) Agamemnon, 228, we note an example 
of the metaphorical use of δύειν. The chorus relates how Aga- 
memnon, after some hesitation, finally decides to yield to the 
demand of Artemis and sacrifice his daughter in order not. to 
disappoint his allies. His yielding to this bitter alternative is 
expressed by the phrase—8’avayxas ἔδυ Aéradvov.*" Necessity is here 
conceived as a yoke that controls Agamemnon and determines his 
course of action. Moreover, in this phrase Agamemnon is the 
subject. Consequently he is described as giving himself over to 
the power of the necessity of sacrificing his own daughter, for he 
is free to accept the other alternative. The effect of this surrender 
is, of course the sacrificing of his daughter. Here the II aorist is 
used in the sense, to enter into, to give oneself up to the power of. 
Perhaps the active expresses that Agamemnon is free to submit 
to the yoke or not.—In this example we have 

a) The ceasing to be in one state and the entering into another, 
which implies, 

b) The surrender of Agamemnon to the possession and power 
of necessity, and 

c) The consequent change in Agamemnon effected by, and 
in conformity with, this necessity. 


3. AYEIN-AYES@AT AND ITs CompounDs IN HERopotus 


Like Homer, Herodotus (Ὁ. 484) uses Svew in its naive mate- 
rial sense. In his Historiae VIII, he speaks of an expert diver 
(δύτης) who dives into the sea—Sis és τὴν θάλασσαν. 

Likewise, we find ἐσδύεσθαι, or rather ἐσδύνειν, used by Herodo- 
tus in its strictly literal sense. We may remark here that already 
in this author the compounds ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι and especially ἐσδύειν- 
ἐσδύεσθαι occur more frequently than in Homer. Describing the 
cultivation of palm trees in Babylonia, he says the natnes tie the 
fruit of the so-called male palms to the branches of the date- 


37 Agam., 228 (Al. 217). 
38 Hist., VII, 8, 2. 


66 


bearing palms, to let the gall-fly enter the ἀδίε--- ψὴν τὴν βάλανον 
ἐσδύνων. 5 

He uses ἐσδύειν also absolutely with the object understood. 
Speaking of the robbery of an Egyptian king’s treasury, he says 
that one of the thieves entered in (ἐσδύντος τοῦ ἑτέρου atray) ,*° and 
that, when he was caught in a trap, he ordered his brother to enter 
in as quickly as possible (τὴν ταχίστην éodivra)** and to cut off his 
head. 

Herodotus employs ἐνδύειν, not only in connection with gar- 
ments,‘ as is the case with Homer, but also with armor—éevdvew- 
ἐνδύεσθαι τὰ ὅπλα.“ ; 

In the Historiae II there occurs a phrase that deserves special 
attention. Here we find ésdvvew and ἐσδύεσθαι used in their naive 
material sense, but in connection with the doctrine of the transmi- 
gration of souls. The Egyptians, says our historian, were also 
the first to broach the opinion that the soul of man is immortal, 
and that, when the body dies, the soul always enters into the form 
of another animal, which then comes into being—rov σώματος δὲ 
καταφθίνοντος és ἄλλο ζῷον αἰεὶ γινόμενον éeodvera,** until it has circled 
through the forms of all the creatures which tenant the earth, the 
water, and the air, after which it enters again into a human body, 
which then comes into being—airis és ἀνθρώπου σῶμα γινόμενον 
éoduvew.*®> It may be observed in this example that the middle 
of ésdvew is used synonymously with the active of ἐσδύνειν. 

The phrase “the soul enters the body” undoubtedly expresses 
a moving from one place to another which results in an intimate 
union between the soul and the body. Here, too, the idea of pos- 
session is implied. As we have seen, in Homer δύειν-δύεσθαι may 
mean either to take possession of or to surrender to the possession 
and power of; so the expression before us may be interpreted to 
signify : the soul gives itself up to the possession and power of the 
body or the soul takes possession of the body, according as the 
body or the soul is regarded as the stronger principle. Which 
idea is conveyed here, can not be determined with absolute cer- 
tainty ; but, if the notion of the Egyptians concerning the nature 
of the relation between the body and the soul was the same as 

39 Hist., I, 193, 5. 

40 Hist., Il, 121, 2. 

41 Ibid. 

42 Hist., ΤΙ, 81, 1; VII, 64; 11, 42, 4 and 6. 

43 Hist., 1, 172, 2; VII, 218, 1. 


44 Hist., II, 123, 2. 
45 [bid, 


67 


that of the Greek metempsychosists, especially Pythagoras and 
Plato,*® who, as Herodotus says, borrowed the doctrine of the 
transmigration of souls from the Egyptians,** then the phrase 
means: the soul gives itself up to the possession and power of the 
body. In consequence of its entering into the body, the soul not 
only gives life to it but also ceases to be in one state or condition 
and begins to be in a new state. It not only receives a new mode 
of existence, but it is variously affected by, and according to, the 
nature of the body to which it is united. 

This example is the more interesting as we see such a striking 
parallel to the texts of St. Paul we are investigating. In both 
cases, the general frame in which the ἐνδύεσθαι or ἐσδύνειν-ἐσδύεσθαι 
occurs is the regeneration; and in both cases the subject of the 
verb loses one mode of existence and enters on a new one, becomes 
subject to the power of the object of the ἐνδύεσθαι, and is changed 
by, and in conformity with, it. It is important to note the essen- 
tial elements connected with ἐσδύνειν-ἐσδύεσθαι in the phrase 
before us: 

a) The moving from one place to another. 

b) The surrender to the possession and power of the body and 

c) The consequent change in the life of the soul; this implies 

d) The ceasing to be in one state and entering on another. 

e) The new life of the soul may be styled a regeneration. 

As Homer uses δύειν-δύεσθαι and ἐνδύειν, so Herodotus employs 
ἐσδύνειν figuratively of passions that enter and take possession of 
man. The historian tells us that, when the Pelasgians learned that 
the sons of their Athenian concubines took concerted action 
against the sons of their Pelasgian wives, they consulted together 
and on considering the matter terror entered—xai σφι βουλευομένοισι 
δεινόν τι ἐσέδυνε͵ “δ 1.6., took possession of them. Here ἐσδύνειν is used 
in the same sense as éodvew. 


4. AYEIN, EIZAYEIN AND ENAYEIN IN SOPHOCLES 


Like Homer and Herodotus, Sophocles (Ὁ. 496) uses δύειν in 
its naive material sense. The chorus says of Ajax, who com- 
mitted suicide: O that he had ere this entered into the vast ether 
or the common Hades—d¢ere πρότερον αἰθέρα δῦναι μέγαν ἢ τὸν 
πολύκοινον ‘Aday.*? This phrase includes the idea of possession and 


48 They considered the body as the prison of the soul. 
47 Hist,, 11, 123, 2. 
48 Hist., VI, 138, 3. 
49 Ajax, 1192-1193. 


power. But since Hades is deemed the stronger, the dominating 
factor, the meaning is not Ajax took possession of Hades, but 
gave himself up to the realm, the possession and power of Hades. 

*Evdvew is employed by Sophocles in connection with garments. 
It seems that already at his time évdvew was the commonly accepted 
compound of δύειν. In the Trachiniae, the playwright speaks of 
a garment which poisoned Heracles who put it on—v κεῖνος évus.°° 
This example is interesting, since it indicates clearly that, by enter- 
ing into the garment, Heracles gave himself up to the power of 
the poison of the garment, which exercised its sinister effect on 
him. The exercise of the power of poisoning is here only acci- 
dentally connected with ἐνδύειν ; but it is important to note that 
ἐνδύειν is used to express such accidental features together with 
its own essential meaning—to pass under the possession and power 
of. Note the use of the II aorist active in this and the preceding 
example. 

Finally, Sophocles, like Hua and ‘Herodotus: speaks of dis- 
positions as entering man and taking possession of him. He, 
however, uses εἰσδύειν to express this figure. When Oedipus 
Tyrannus discovers that he has killed his father and married his 
mother, he pierces his own eyes. Thereupon, he exclaims, How 
both the sting of the points and the memory of the evils entered 
me together—oiov—eicedv p’apa κέντρων τε τῶδ᾽ οἴστρημα καὶ μνήμη 
κακῶν. This exclamation of pain, not only expresses the mere 
entering of the sting of the points and the memory of the evils, 
but implies that the one as well as the other exercises a power 
over him, the power of torturing. This twofold idea is fully ex- 
pressed by the phrase “they took possession of him.”—In the two 
foregoing examples the II aorist active-—=to give oneself up to 
the possession of ; here it==to take possession of. 


5. AYES@AI, ENAYEIN-ENAYE@AI, AND EISAYEIN 
ΙΝ EuripPipEs | 
Also this tragedian (Ὁ. 480) employs δύεσθαι and εἰσδύειν in their 
strictly literal sense. Thus in Electra, Castor says the Furies 
enter into the earth’s abyss— dopa δύσονται χθονός." 
Again, we read that, when Iphigenia is sacrificed, no one knows 
whither she has gone—od γῆς εἰσέδυ. 


5° Trach., 759. 

51 Oed. T., 1317-1318. 
52 Flectra, 127%. 

53 Iphig. A., 1583. 


69 


Also in Euripides we find ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι used in connection 
with garments. In the Bacchantes he speaks of Pentheus putting 
on woman’s clothes—@jAvv évddvar®* and ἐνδύσεται. The purpose 
of putting on this disguise was that he might observe unnoticed 
the orgies of the bacchant women. As we have already remarked, 
δύειν-δύεσθαι or ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι, when used in connection with gar- 
ments, emphasizes, not the motion of going from one place to an- 
other, but the action by which the person receives a new outward 
appearance. This implies that the person gives himself up to the 
quasi possession of the garment. These ideas are more clearly 
expressed in the example before us. For surely, when a man puts 
on a garment of a woman he gives himself up to the quasi posses- 
sion of the garment, which changes his outward appearance ; he 
receives the outward appearance of a woman. 

It is likewise noteworthy that Euripides speaks of the σαρκὸς 
évdurd,*® 1.6., that into which the flesh has entered, meaning the 
skin. The σάρξ is, as it were, the property of the skin, which 
envelopes and holds it and gives it a new outward appearance. 


6. ENAYEIN-ENAYE@AI IN ARISTOPHANES 


This dramatist (b.c. 448) uses évdvew,°’ ἐνδύεσθαι," 5 not only in 
its literal meaning with garment as its object, but also ἐνδύεσθαι in 
a metaphorical sense. In Ecclesiagusae we read of a plot formed 
by somé women of Athens to attend the public meeting under 
the guise of old men and vote a change in government. Their 
action is referred to in the words—évdvopevar—roArAnua τηλικοῦντον, "ἢ 
entering into such a daring scheme. Here the scheme is regarded 
as a power to which they give themselves over, and which conse- 
quently governs and controls their actions. The middle is used 
to denote the surrender to the possession and power of something. 

A still more curious example of the metaphorical use of ἐνδύειν 
is found in Vespae. At the end of the third act, the chorus sings 
the praises of the author of the play. He, they sing, imitating the 
art of divination used by Eurycles, has entered into the “ventres” 
of others and poured forth from there many a comical jest—eis 
ἀλλοτρίας γαστέρας ἐνδὺς κωμῳδικὰ πολλὰ xéacba.°° This expression 

54 Bacc., 836, εἶτ. also 852. ἘΝ 

55 Bacc., 853. 

58 Bacc., 746-747. 

57 Thes., 1044; Lys, 1021. 

58 Thes., 253. 


59 Ecc., 287-288. 
60 Vesp., 1020. 


70 


evidently implies possession and control. For, as it was believed 
that a spirit entered and took possession of soothsayers like Eury- 
cles and poured forth his ideas through the soothsayer’s lips,** so 
the poet describes himself as having entered into the “venter” of 
the players—taken possession of them—and as having conse- 
quently poured forth his wit and humor from their lips. In this 
figurative phrase there are expressed most clearly: 

a) The moving from one place to another ; 

b) The possession and control of the object, which implies 

c) Union, and effects 

d) A change in the object in conformity to the possessor. 
The players speak the words and imitate the actions of the play- 
wright.—Here the II aorist active is again used to express the 
taking possession of. 

It is of interest to remember Chrysostom’s interpretation of 
the Pauline formula. He has the same exegesis of possession 
but significantly in the inverted order. What is more important. 
however, is that he calls our becoming the possession of Christ a 
“mysterium horrendum.” Certainly no one would think of a “my- 
sterium horrendum” in Aristophanes’s example, since his words 
are not to be taken literally. The reason for the appellation “my- 
sterium horrendum” in Chrysostom’s interpretation is the fact that 
the expression ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is to be understood in its literal 
and real signification. In the light of this passage, especially when 
it is considered in connection with all the preceding examples, the 
ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν Of St. Paul would find its final solution. 


7. ENAYEIN AND ENAYES@AI IN XENOPHON 


In Xenophon (b.c. 434) we find the active voice évdvew used in 
the causative sense of to clothe someone with a garment.®” 

It is more important to note several examples of the figurative 
use of ἐνδύεσθαι by this author. One of the leaders of the allies of 
Cyrus asks the king to address their troops, since his words would 
enter deepest into the minds of the hearers—aAdyor οὗτοι καὶ μάλιστα 
ἐνδύονται ταῖς ψυχαῖς τῶν ἀκουόντων. 5 "Evévovra: here seems to be a 
passive form, and it means: the words are entered into by the 
souls, i.e., the souls give themselves up to the power and influence 
of Cyrus’s words. 

61 Cfr. Rogers, The Wasps, 152. 


62 Cyr., I, III, 3. 
8 Cyr., II, I, 13. 


71 


We have in Xenophon another example of the metaphorical 
use of évdvew. He tells us that Cyrus entered into the care—éevédv 
μὲν---εἰς ταύτην τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν," of providing the best possible men 
for the most important offices in his realm. The care is here con- 
ceived as a duty, a power to which Cyrus surrenders himself, and 
which in turn regulates his actions. 


8. ENAYEIN-ENAYES@AI IN PLATO 

As Herodotus uses évivew and ἐνδύεσθαι, so Plato employs the 
middle of ἐνδύειν in connection with the doctrine of the transmi- 
gration of souls. In Phaedo*® he teaches that the souls of the 
wicked are compelled to flit about the tombs until, through the. 
desire of the corporeal which clings to them, they are again im- 
prisoned in a Ῥοάγ---ἐνδεθῶσιν εἰς oopa,—and they are likely to be 
imprisoned in natures (ἐνδοῦνται δὲ, ὥσπερ εἰκὸς, εἰς----ἤθη) which 
correspond to the practice of their former life. Thus, those who 
have indulged in gluttony and violence and drunkenness are likely 
to enter into the species of asses and similar beasts—eis τὰ τῶν ὄνων 
γένη καὶ τοιούτων θηρίων εἰκὸς ἐνδύεσθαι ; while those that have prac- 
ticed injustice and tyranny and robbery go into, εἰς---ἰέναι, the 
species of wolves and hawks and kites and the like. Evidently in 
this example ἐνδύεσθαι εἰς is used synonymously with ἐνδεῖσθαι εἰς, 
which means to be imprisoned in, and with ἰέναι eis, which simply 
expresses the moving from one place to another. Ἐνδύεσθαι and 
ἰέναι receive their most emphatic interpretation from ἐνδεῖσθαι. For 
the phrase, to be imprisoned, includes the idea to be subject to a 
controlling and dominating power, which here is the nature of 
the beasts into which the soul enters or to whose power the soul 
gives itself up. In consequence of this imprisonment, the soul 
receives a new mode of existence and is variously changed accord- 
ing to the nature of the prison.®* 


θέ Cyr., VIII, I, 12. 
65 Phaedo, XXXI.. 

_ 667 may be of interest to quote a few words from Zeller relative to 
Plato’s idea concerning the relation between the body and the soul: “Erhe- 
bliche Schwierigkeiten macht endlich auch das Verhaltniss der Seele zum 
Korper. Einerseits soll sie in ihrem Wesen so durchaus verschieden und in 
ihrem Dasein so unabhangig von ihm sein, dass sie ohne ihn existiet hat und 
dereinst wieder ohne ihn zu existieren bestimmt ist, ja sie soll nur dann 
einen vollkommeneren, ihrer wahren Natur entsprechenden Lebenszustand 
erreichen, wenn sie die Fesseln des Korpers abgestreift hat. Anderseits 
aber soll dieser ihr so fremdartige Leib einen so stdrenden Einfluss auf sie 
ausitiben dass sie von ihm in den Strom des Werdens herabgezogen in 
Irrthum verseucht, mit Unruhe und Verwirrung erfillt, durch Leiden- 
schaften und Begierden, durch Sorgen, Furcht, Einbildungen trunken 
gemacht wird ; die stiirmischen Wogen des korperlichen Lebens sollen ihren 


72 


In the Respublica, Plato uses ἐνδύεσθαι with the simple accusa- 
tive in the same sense. A certain Erus, who has returned from 
Hades, relates that he saw the soul of the buffoon Thersites enter- 
ing into an ape—ideiv τὴν τοῦ γελωτοποιοῦ Θερσίτου (ψυχὴν). πίθηκον 
ἐνδυομένην, 7 1.6., becoming the possession of an ape. 

Equally interesting are the examples of ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι used in 
a figurative sense. Plato speaks of an image entering man, and 
conversely of man or the mind of man entering an object. 

In the Respublica II, XVII, the philosopher treats of the edu- 
cation of the citizens. Especially when the mind is young and 
tender is the image which we wish to imprint on each individual 
formed and enters in—pddwora yap δὴ τότε πλάττεται καὶ ἐνδύεται 
τύπος, ὃν ἄν τις βούληται ἐνσημήνασθαι ἑκάστῳ. 5 In this phrase, ἐνδύεται 
seems to be the passive form and to mean that the soul submits 
more easily to the possession and control of the τύπος, by which 
and conformably to which it is consequently molded.* 

Again, Plato speaks of the mind entering into its object. He 
tells us that only he is competent to judge the relative happiness 
of the just and the unjust man who is not struck with the outward 
pomp of a tyrant, but who is able by reflection to enter into and 
see through the nature of man—#és δύναται τῇ διανοίᾳ εἰς ἀνδρὸς ἦθος 
ἐνδὺς Sudeiv.7° Not merely the figurative entering into the nature 
of some one else is here expressed, but also the exercise of the 
power of the subject that enters. In the previous examples we 
saw that the power implied by the ἐνδύεσθαι is exercised in shaping 
the object into something else. Here, however, by the ἐνδύειν it is 
merely stated that the intellect exercises its power, namely the 
power to scrutinize; but this connotes that it subjects the object 
to its scrutinizing power. The phrase then supposes an intellectual 


ewigen Kreislauf zerriitten und aufhalten; beim Eintritt in den K6rper soll 
sie den Trank der Vergessenheit geschliirft, sollen such die Anschauungen 
ihres fritheren Daseins bis zur Unkenntlichkeit verwischt haben; von ihrer 
Verbindung mit dem Kérper soll jene ganze Verunstaltung ihres Wesens 
herriihren, die Plato mit so lebhaften Farben ausmalt.” After mentioning 
other influences of the body on the soul, he concludes: “Von so durch- 
greifender Bedeutung ist das kérperliche Leben, in seinem Anfang wie in 
seinem Fortgang, fiir den Geist. Wie sich aber diess mit Plato’s ander- 
weitigen Annahmen vertragen soll, lasst sich allerdings nicht absehen. Cfr. 
Philosophie Der Griechen, ΤΊ., τ, 855-859. 

87 Resp., X, XVI. 

68 Resp., II, XVII. 

69 Plato in Leg. I, XI, speaks of kind feeling taking possession of chil- 
dren. But, since the correct reading of the Greek text is uncertain, the 
mere reference to this example suffices. 

70 Resp., IX, IV. 


78 


domination over the secret and mysterious ways of the human 
heart ; an intellectual possession.” 

In Cratylus év8vew occurs in the sense of to clothe, but with a 
figurative connotation. Plato is discussing the derivation of 
names. When he is asked by Hermogenes to give the etymology 
of the names of various virtues, he replies that, since he has 
entered into the lion’s skin—éredhrep τὴν λεοντῆν evdeduxa,” it is 
proper for him, not to shrink from the task, but to examine those 
names. The phrase ἐνδύεται τὴν λεοντῆν, as we learn from Gregory 
of Constantinople,’* was a familiar proverbial expression with the 
Greeks, and, according to Apostolius,”* it was applied to those who 
“magna aggrediuntur.” In our text, Plato seems to mean that, 
since he has made bold to give the etymology of other words, he 
should not shrink from an attempt to comply with the request of 
Hermogenes. 

We have here a figure taken from the idea of putting on a 
garment. And what the phrase, to enter a garment, intimates, 
this figure clearly expresses; namely, to give oneself up to the 
influence or control of that which the garment represents—in our 
case, courage. The words then mean to enter into the possession 
of courage, to be possessed by courage. The effect of being thus 
possessed is Plato’s attempt to explain the names. In the figure 
of a garment then we have: 

a) The surrender to the possession of that for which the gar- 
ment stands, which implies 

b) A union, and effects 

c) A change in the subject in accordance with that for which 
the garment stands.—It is strange that in this figure the perfect 
of the active is used synonymously with the middle. 


9. ENAYEX@AI IN ARISTOTLE 


Aristotle (b. 384) objects to those philosophers who indeed 
admit that the soul is united to the body, but who do not determine 
further the relation of the body to the soul, just as if it were pos- 
sible, as the Pythagorean fables say, that any soul can enter any 
body—ryv τυχοῦσαν ψυχὴν εἰς τὸ τυχὸν ἐνδύεσθαι σῶμα. This idea is 
71 This idea of possession is well expressed by our slang phrase “I got 
you.” | 
72 Crat., XXVI. 

73 Migne, P. G., 142, 456 Ὁ. 


74 Tbid. 
75 Anima, I, III. 


74 


just as ridiculous as if some one would say that the carpenter’s 
art could enter into pipes—ryy τεκτονικὴν εἰς αὐλοὺς ἐνδύεσθαι. For, 
he concludes, just as an art must use (χρῆσθαι) its (correspond- 
ing) instruments, so must the soul use the body, 1.6., must have 
such a body as is adapted to its use. *Evéveoa, in the first phrase, 
means that the proper soul be possessed by the proper body. This 
meaning is evident from the example that follows, which says that 
the carpenter’s art can not be possessed by pipes. 


10. THE METAPHOR ENAYES@AI TINA IN DioNysiIus 


In Ant. Rom., XI, V, of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (b.c. 54 
B.C.) we note an example of the metaphorical use of ἐνδύεσθαι fol- 
lowed by a personal object. This citation deserves special atten- 
tion, not only on account of its close similarity with the phrase of 
St. Paul, but especially because it has again and again been quoted 
and referred to by exegetes as a proof that ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν means 
nothing more than imitation. It is also this example that Bloom- 
field has in mind when he says that, in the passages cited by com- 
mentators of ἐνδύεσθαι, “there is no more than a slight allusion to 
conduct considered figuratively, as a dress.” 

The important expression in question is found in a description 
of a meeting of the Roman senate. When Valerius was speaking, 
Appius and the rest of the decemviri sprang up and prevented 
him from continuing. A great noise ensued. Finally Marcus 
Horatius, no longer able to restrain his anger, addressed Appius 
and his associates: Very quickly do you force me, Appius, to rend 
the bridles in twain, since you are no longer moderate but put on 
that Tarquin—otxér: μετριάζοντες, ἀλλὰ τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον ἐν- 
δυόμενοι ;78 for you do not allow those to say a word who wish to 
speak in behalf of the common welfare. What is the precise mean- 
ing of the phrase τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον évdvdpevor? 

We have seen that, in the Greek literature from Homer down 
to Dionysius, ἐνδύεσθαι implies, in the first place, possession. We 
have further seen that he who is possessed, or becomes the posses- 
sion, of another thing, is changed according to the possessor. 

If then we wish to interpret the words of Dionysius in accord- 
ance with the unanimous testimony of the Greek writers, we must 
say that the fundamental idea implied in this phrase is possession. 

τὸ [bid. 


τ Recensio synop. Annot. Sacr., V1, 160. 
78 Ant. Rom., XI, V, 2. 


15 


To exclude this idea and to interpret the words merely in the 
sense of to imitate is to establish an exception which is unwar- 
ranted. | 

Moreover, with this interpretation the context of our passage 
is in perfect agreement. Appius and his associates have, so to 
say, surrendered to the possession and power of Tarquin, are so 
possessed by Tarquin that they are changed according to him; 
they become, as it were, other Tarquins. Since the context clearly 
shows that, in consequence of this possession, Appius and his asso-. 
ciates are changed or conformed to Tarquin and not vice versa, 
the words τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον ἐνδυόμενοι evidently mean to surrender 
to the possession of Tarquin, or to let oneself be possessed by 
Tarquin, and not to take possession of Tarquin. 

The context, moreover, tells us precisely how Appius and his 
comrades are changed: they receive the qualities of Tarquin; 
namely, his intolerance and arrogance. By receiving these quali- 
ties, they are made quasi Tarquins. Horatius tells us this when 
he adds: For you do not allow those to say a word who wish to 
speak in behalf of the common welfare. 

The circumstance that the context gives us the key to the pre- 
cise interpretation of the phrase ἐνδύεσθαί τινα, for determining not 
only the subject of the possession, but also the precise nature of 
its effects, is most important, yet it seems to be not generally rec- 
ognized by commentators. 

Since in this phrase the effect of the possession is explicitly 
described, commentators conclude that external imitation, or as- 
sumption of the qualities of another, is the primary and only idea 
contained in the word ἐνδύεσθαι both in this instance and in all 
others in which it is used. Imitation is certainly included in this 
phrase. But to render the expression by “you are imitating that 
Tarquin” is to emasculate it. The fundamental and dominating 
idea would be better expressed by “you are possessed, you are 
bewitched by Tarquin.” That Appius and his associates conse- 
quently act like Tarquin, is only the result of the possession which 
forms the fundamental idea. And this effect is more than mere 
imitation. It is conceived as being effected by Tarquin; he, his 
power, is conceived as acting in them. 

Finally, from the fact that Dionysius represents Horatius as 
speaking these words in ordinary conversation, yes in a heated 
debate, we must infer that this metaphorical sid eet was a 
common and popular phrase. 


76 


This example of the use of ἐνδύεσθαι with a personal object is 
certainly most remarkable and bears a striking similarity to St. 
Paul’s expression. But neither to this example can we apply the 
words of Chrysostom, “mysterium horrendum,” for here we evi- 
dently have a metaphorical use of ἐνδύεσθαι. Appius and his com- 
rades are not actually possessed and changed by Tarquin. 
Certainly Chrysostom saw in St. Paul’s use of the same phrase 
more than is expressed here. This additional meaning, as we have 
seen, consists in the reality of Christ’s possession of us; we are 
actually His property and He actually dwells in us and conforms 
us to Himself. There is no question that here we have the key to 
the solution of the Pauline formula. 


II. ENAYES@AI τιν PHILO 


In the De Mundo IV of Philo (b. 25 B.c.), we meet with a 
strange use of ἐνδύεσθαι. Speaking of the specific differences be- 
tween the various classes of creatures, he says that of the bodies 
some enter into habit, and others nature, and others soul, and 
others a rational soul—rév σωμάτων, τὰ μὲν ἐνεδύσατο ἕξιν, τὰ δὲ φύσιν, 
τὰ δὲ ψυχὴν, τὰ δὲ λογικὴν ψυχήν. Evidently, in this citation, ἐνδύεσθαι 
can not mean to enter. For Philo immediately describes habit 
(ἕξιν) which one class of bodies ἐνεδύσατο, not as enclosing the 
bodies, but as being enclosed by them.*® In the same manner, he 
conceives the soul to be enclosed in the body as in a prison.™ 
*EvdverGa, then, in this case, does not mean to enter, but it implies 
the idea of possession. But does Philo mean that the bodies take 
possession of or become the possession of habit, etc.? The latter 
is evidently his meaning, for the change that is effected in the 
possessed is here predicated of the bodies. Thus through their 
union with a φύσις or ψυχῆ, as Philo explains,** bodies become 
plants or animals or men, respectively. 


12. ENAYES@AI IN JOSEPHUS 


This author (b. 37 A.D.) uses the word only in its literal signifi- 
cation with clothing** and armor*® as its object. In Antiq. XIX, 
I, 5, he speaks of the Emperor Cajus who put on woman’s clothes 
---στολὰς yap ἐνδυόμενος γυναικείας. He did this, adds Josephus, to 


79 Opera. II, 606. 

80 Tbid. 

81 Cfr. also Zeller, apace en der Griechen, III, 2, bg 
82 Opera. II, 606 ff 

83 Antiq., XVII, 5: 7; XVIII, 4, 3; ete. 

84 Bel. Jud., Lit Mee 


77 


make the company mistake him for a woman. As we have already 
remarked,** when a man puts on the garment of a woman he gives 
himself up to the quasi possession of the garment, and conse- 
quently is changed by it; he receives the outward appearance of 
a woman. | 


13. METAPHORICAL UsE oF ENAYEX@AI By CHRISTIAN WRITERS 
In the first age of the Christian era, we repeatedly find ἐνδύεσθαι 
used in a figurative sense by the Christian writers. 


a) St. Clement of Rome 


The first example we wish to adduce is found in the (first) 
letter of St. Clement of Rome, which was written in the last decade 
of the first century of our era.** In the third chapter, the author 
exhorts his readers to cleave to those to whom grace is given from 
God and to enter into concord—évivowpeba τὴν ὁμόνοιαν. At the 
same time he points out the manner in which it should manifest 
itself in them: being lowly-minded and temperate, holding our- 
selves aloof from all backbiting and evil speaking, being justified 
by works and not by words.** The words ἐνδυσώμεθα τὴν ὁμόνοιαν, 
which are similar to Homer’s phrase δύεσθαι ἀλκήν, clearly mean: 
let us enter into the possession of concord, let us be possessed by 
concord, and thereby assume its qualities, 1.e., become: truly 
harmonious. 7 | 

b) St. Ignatius 

In’ his letter to St. Polycarp, written between 98 and 117,°° 
this holy martyr exhorts his friend by the grace wherewith he is 
clothed παρακαλῶ σε ἐν χάριτι ἣ evdé8voa,°° to press forward in his 
course and to exhort all men that they may be saved. “Evdveo@a: in 
this expression, as in the words of St. Clement, can not mean to 
enter physically into, for grace is not about us but in us. The 
natural meaning of the phrase is that Polycarp has become the 
possession of grace, that he has been possessed and transformed 
by it. | | 

c) Shepherd of Hermas 

In the Shepherd of Hermas (written between 140 and 155),** 

the metaphorical use of ἐνδύεσθαι as an expression denoting the 


85 Bel. Jud., V, 5, 7. 

86 Cfr. Bardenhewer, Patrol., 27. 
87 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 21. 
88 Lightfoot, Op. cit., 70. 

89 Cfr. Bardenhewer, Patrol.,- 30. 
9° Lightfoot, Op. cit., 131. 

91: Cfr. Bardenhewer, Patrol., 40. 


78 


entrance into the possession of various virtues and vices and other 
qualities, is quite frequent. He speaks of entering into (ἐνδύεσθαι) 
the faith of the Lord,*? justice,** reverence,®* long-suffering,®® 
truth,°° good and holy desire,*” cheerfulness,** strength,®® as also 
mutch folly,*°° and great pride.*** A good desire he also designates 
as an évdupa.?°? 

In the above-mentioned phrases, ἐνδύεσθαι can not have its 
strictly literal meaning of to enter ; for all the qualities mentioned 
are conceived as being in man, penetrating and affecting his very 
nature. The words can only mean that man surrenders himself 
to the possession and control of these qualities, and consequently 
assumes the nature and the qualities of the possessor. To con- 
vince ourselves that this is the meaning of the phrase, we need 
only examine an example. 

In the 3. Vision, a young man appears to Hermas and relates 
the following parable. An old man, who has lost all hope in him- 
self by reason of his weakness and his poverty, and who is waiting 
only for the last day of his life, suddenly receives an inheritance. 
He hears the news, rises, and full of joy enters into strength— 
ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἰσχύν, and no longer lies down, but stands up, and his 
spirit, which was broken by reason of his former condition, is 
renewed again, and he no longer sits, but takes courage.*** Strength 
is here conceived as a power that came from without and took 
possession of the old man. The phrase ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἰσχύν then 
means: he was possessed by strength, and received the qualities of 
his possessor, 1.6., he became strong, as the vision says, he no 
longer lies down, and his broken spirit is renewed. The possessing 
power inaugurates a restoration and renovation. 


14. ENAYEIN AnD AITOAYES@AI 1n LUCIAN 


We now come to an example which has been adduced by a few 
exegetes to explain the Pauline formula. The phrase occurs in 
Lucian’s (b.c. 120 A.D.) Gallus 19, and reads, ἀποδυσάμενος δὲ τὸν 


92 V., 4,1, 8; M., 9, 7; M., 9, 10;5S., 6, I, 2. 
93 M., 2; S., 6, I, 4. 


97 M., 12, I, I. 
99 V., 3, XII, 2. 


103 Cfr, Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 418. 


79 


Πυθαγόραν τίνας μετημφιάσω per’ αὐτόν. According to Schleusner,>”* 
this ἀποδύεσθαι is the contrary οἱ ἐνδύεσθαι used in the sense 
of to imitate the “naturam et mores” of some one. Similarly, 
Olshausen’” regards it as an example of ἀποδύεσθαι in the mean- 
ing of “fashioning oneself unlike—a person.” Barnes’ gives 
a curious translation and explanation of this expression. Ac- 
cording to him Lucian says “having received him as a teacher 
and guide.” Although Bloomfield’ mentions no particular pas- 
sage, still he most probably has this example in mind when he says 
that in the passages cited by commentators of ἀποδύεσθα----- 
“exuere,” “there is no more than a slight allusion to conduct con- 
sidered figuratively, as a dress.” And this example should then 
serve as a confirmation or proof of his assertion that the explana- 
tion of ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν in Rom. XIII, 14, by St. John Chrysostom 
“is scarcely apposite.” 

But let us examine the context of Lucian’s phrase. In a dia- 
logue between a cobbler, named Micyllus, and a cock, the latter at 
his master’s request explains the various transmigrations he has 
undergone, how his soul, coming from Apollo to the earth, entered 
into the body of a man—7 ψυχή μοι----ἐνέδυ εἰς ἀνθρώπου aopa,'°? how 
he became Euphorbus, and how, after a lapse of time, he came 
into Pythagoras és Πυθαγόραν jxov.1°? When the cock has related 
several incidents from his life as Pythagoras, Micyllus asks him: 
᾿Αποδυσάμενος δὲ τὸν Πυθαγόραν τίνας μετημφιάσω per’ αὐτόν. To this 
question the cock answers: ᾿Ασπασίαν τὴν ἐκ Μιλήτου ἑταίραν. Micyl- 
lus rejoins: Φεῦ τοῦ λόγου, καὶ γυνὴ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁ Πυθαγόρας 
ἐγένετο." ἡ 

It is inconceivable how any one who has only superficially read 
this passage and noted its context, can say that ἀποδύεσθαι here 
refers to imitation. It is evident that the phrase must be inter- 
preted in the light of what precedes and follows; namely, in the 
light of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, and it clearly 
means to go out of. 

It is likewise strange that the phrase évédv εἰς ἀνθρώπου σῶμα, 
which occurs in the same context, has been entirely overlooked by 
commentators. 


104 Nov. Lex. Graeco—Lat in N. T., I, 631. 111 7}14. 
105 Bib. Comm. on Rom., 404. 

106 Notes on Rom., 322. 

107 Recensio synop. Amnnot. Sacr., VI, 161. 

108 Gall., 16. 

109 Gall., 17. 

110 Gall,, το. 


80 


This latter phrase is evidently synonymous with the expression 
that occurs a few lines later, és Πυθαγόραν jjxov—I came into 
Pythagoras. *Evéivew, accordingly, implies the union of the soul 
with the body ; and ἀποδύεσθαι, its opposite, the disunion, the sep- 
aration of the soul from the body—and not imitation. But the 
ἐνδύειν here implies more than mere union; it expresses a qualified 
union. Like the ἐσδύνειν-ἐσδύεσθαι found in Herodotus and the 
ἐνδύεσθαι in Plato, ἐνδύειν here means that the soul becomes the 
possession of the body and is changed by it. In other words, the 
soul by its entrance into the body loses its former mode of exist- 
ence and receives a new mode of being; yes, it is here represented 
as becoming that into which it enters. Thus, when the soul of the 
cock enters the body of Euphorbus, it becomes Euphorbus 
(Εὔφορβος ἐγενόμην) ;** when it enters the body of Aspasia, it is 
transformed (μετημφιάσω) into Aspasia and becomes a woman 
( yuvy—éyévero ).17* Note here again the II aorist used in the sense 
of the middle. 

If ἐνέδυ here means: the soul became the possession of the body, 
then ἀποδυσάμενος τὸν Πυθαγόραν must mean: having left the pos- 
_ session of Pythagoras, 1.e., of his body, having been freed from its 
control and dominion.*** 


15. [THE METAPHOR ENAYES@AI TINA IN EUSEBIUS 


In the introduction of Eusebius’s (Ὁ. 265 a.p.) Life of Con- 
stantine, we find an excellent example of the metaphor ἐνδύεσθαί 
twa, Which, however, has apparently not been adduced in explana- 
tion of the Pauline formula, except by Gataker.**° 

In the beginning of his introduction, the historian declares that 
whithersoever he gazes, whether to the east or to the west or at 
the whole world or towards heaven itself, everywhere he sees the 
blessed king present to his kingdom. His sons, he continues, I see 
as new lights of the earth, filling the universe with his rays, and 
him (I see) living by his power and governing the life of all 
together better than before, being multiplied by the succession of 
his children; for heretofore they shared indeed the honor of 
Emperors, but now they have entered into their father wholly— 
οἱ Καισάρων μὲν ἔτι πρότερον μετεῖχον τιμῆς, νυνὶ δ᾽ ὅλον αὐτὸν 
ἐνδυσάμενοι. 5 


112 Gall., 16. 116 Migne, P. G., 20, 911 B. 
113 Gall., το. 

114 Gall., 20. 

115 Opera, 226. 


81 


This expression is very similar to the phrase, to enter into 
Tarquin, found in the Ant. Rom. of Dionysius, and, like it, it 
implies possession and dominion. The sons of Constantine, Euse- 
bius wishes to say, have, as it were, completely surrendered them- 
selves to the possession of their father; they are completely 
possessed by him, and are consequently changed according to him ; 
they have become, so to say, other Constantines. The context 
tells in what respect the sons are controlled by their father, so that 
they have become other Constantines. It is by the acquisition of 
his qualities. Eusebius says they were wholly possessed by their 
father, so that they showed themselves as emperors both by their 
virtue of religion and by upholding the glorious institutions of 
their fathers—®sAov αὐτὸν ἐνδυσάμενοι, θεοσεβείας ἀρετῇ αὐτοκράτορες, 
Αὔγουστοι, σεβαστοὶ, βασιλεῖς, τοῖς τοῦ πατρὸς ἐμπρέποντες καλλωπίσμασιν, 
ἀνεδείχθησαν.. 7 So pronounced is their conformity or identity with 
their father through this acquisition of his qualities in the eyes of 
Eusebius that he continues: I see him living by his power and 
governing all better than before. 

It is clear that in this example not mere imitation is expressed. 
Constantine or his virtues are here conceived as a power that is 
actually working in the sons and conforming them wholly to itself. 

It is highly interesting to compare this metaphorical use of 
ἐνδύεσθαι with the meaning of the word in its literal sense; as, for 
instance, in the examples taken from the doctrine of the transmi- 
gration of souls. In both cases ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι implies possession 
and dominion, and consequently a change in the object controlled. 
It ceases to be in one place, or rather in one state or condition, and 
begins to be in another. This change is effected both by and 
according to the possessor. The important difference between 
the two examples is this: In the literal phrase, the dominating 
factor actually and physically possesses, controls, and changes the 
other; whereas in the metaphorical expression of Eusebius, the 
dominating element is merely conceived as possessing, controlling, 
and changing the other. 


16. THE METAPHOR ENAYEIN TINA IN LIBANIUS 


The last example we shall adduce is contained in a letter of 
Libanius (b.c. 314 a.v.) to Alcibiades. Libanius, having heard 
that Firminus, his former pupil, has given up military life and 

117 [bid. 7 


82 


devoted himself to literary pursuits, writes to Alcibiades: Indeed, 
if you had given me all your goods (οὐσίαν) and likewise those of 
your relatives and friends, you would not have given me more 
than what has been given to me now. For what gift could ever 
appear to θὲ greater than the present one, or even its equal. Then 
he says what he understands by this great gift: Φιρμῖνον pias τὸν 
στρατιώτην ἐνέδυ τὸν σοφιστήν. 5 

Cremer'® explains this phrase as ‘meaning “‘den Sophisten 
spielen,’ sich verhalten, sich geben, darstellen als ware man u.s.w.” 
Accordingly he thinks it is “vdllig verfehlt” to seek to explain the 
Pauline formula by this example or that taken from Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus. It is difficult to see how the phrase ἐνέδυ τὸν 
σοφιστῆν, as it is used by Libariius, means merely “ ‘den Sophisten 
spielen,’ sich—darstellen als ware man u.s.w.” For the context 
clearly indicates that the phrase means he really became a sophist, 
a rhetor, and not only mimicked a sophist. In the first place, 
Firminus was a soldier ; but he gave up this avocation and ἐνέδυ τὸν 
σοφιστήν. The evident meaning is, he adopted the profession of a 
sophist, he became a real sophist, giving up his former profession. 
Moreover, how could Libanius call the news concerning Firminus 
the greatest gift he could receive, if Firminus was only posing as 
a sophist? τ 

The words Libanius adds immediately in explanation of the 
phrase ἐνέδυ τὸν σοφιστὴν bear out our contention. He says: There 
is a chair suited to him, and there are benches and books, and 
young men are being educated, and speeches are being worked out 
and delivered which stir up his educated audience. In these words, 
Libanius depicts the activities of a true rhetorician. The context 
then clearly shows that the phrase ἐνέδυ τὸν σοφιστὴν means Firmi- 
nus became a real sophist; that, in other words, he was changed 
according to the object of the verb, or that he ceased to be in one 
state and began to be in another. 

But is this change the fundamental idea of the phrase or only 
its effect? If this expression is interpreted in the light of the 
meaning of ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι discovered in other examples, both 
literal and figurative, it means that Firminus gave himself up to 
the determining power of sophism, and in consequence of this 
surrender he was changed into a sophist. The context, too, seems 
to suggest this interpretation. For Firminus was a soldier by 


118 Fp., ed. Wolf, 452. 
11) Bib.-theol. Wérterbuch d. neut. Gric., 378. 


83 


profession, but he threw off the soldier—pivas τὸν στρατιώτην, and 
entered into the sophist—évédv τὸν σοφιστήν. These metaphorical 
expressions can be taken to mean that he freed himself from the 
occupation of a soldier and gave himself up to the occupation of a 
sophist. As in his military occupation he was under the power of 
military discipline, so in his sophistic occupation he is under the 
power of sophism. He is subject to its regulations and influences. 
He belongs to the school of sophists ; they call him their own. Here 
the idea of possession, power, and control is apparent. In this 
example, we again have the II aorist active used in the sense of 
the middle. 


Summary and Valuation 

We may now summarize the results of our historical literary 
investigation. , 

1. The principal outstanding result is that in all the examples 
investigated the idea of possession and power is connected with 
(ἐν) δύειν- (ἐν) δύεσθαι. 

2. When used in their naive material sense, Soa verbs = to 
move from one place to another, the place to which one moves is 
ἃ place of domination. This implies the ceasing to be in one place 
and the beginning to be in another. 

3. In their more developed literal sense, as also in their figura- 
tive meaning, they express: 

a) Possession and dominion, and as its effect a 

b) Change in the possessed by and in accordance with the 
possessor. This implies that the possessed ceases to be in one 
state or condition and begins to be in another. 

4. a) The active voice (except in the II aorist)—to take pos- 
session. The only exceptions to this rule, besides Homer’s phrase 
πύλας καὶ τείχεα δύω, is the use of these verbs by earlier writers with 
garments and arms as object, and the figure of Plato which is 
derived from the idea of putting on a garment, τὴν λεοντῆν ἐνδέδυκα. 
Later, however, this proverbial figure is likewise expressed by the 
middle. 

N. B. ἐσδύνειν, with the v, is used by Herodotus in the sense of 
to take possession of and to surrender to the possession of. 

b) The middle voice always =to surrender to the posses- 
sion and dominion of, to become the property and possession of. 
c) The IT aorist active (év)évv—to take possession, and 
to surrender to. the possession of. When used in the latter 


84 


sense, it seems to emphasize the general meaning of the active, 

1.6., to bring out the free will of the agent. 

5. The context always clearly tells us which is the precise 
meaning of the verb: 

a) If the subject is the stronger element and the change 
is effected in the object, it==to take possession and control of. 

b) If the object is the stronger element and the change is 
effected in the subject, it==to surrender to the possession and 
power of, to become the property of. 

6. The context tells us also the precise nature of the change. 
Where the change is made by and according to a person, it means 
a change according to what the person stands for in the context. 

7. When (ἐν) δύειν- (ἐν) δύεσθαι is used in a metaphorical sense, 
the possession is not real but only imagined, and the change, 
though real, is conceived as being made by the possessor. 

8. In the κοινὴ period ἐνδύεσθαι is used in a stereotyped form, 
according to which the object is the stronger element and the 
change is wrought in the subject, and=to give oneself up to the 
possession and power of, to become the property of. 

g. The possession connotes union. Indeed, in some cases, the 
effect of the possession is described as an identity of the possessed 
with the possessor. 

10. The change that results from the possession implies imi- 
tation ; imitation, however, is not the fundamental idea contained 
in (ἐν) dvew- (ἐν) δύεσθαι, but only its effect, nor should it be styled 
mere imitation, but rather assimilation. 

11. ( Ἐν) δύειν- (ἐν) δύεσθαι, as used in the philosophical system 
of the Greeks to express the doctrine of the transmigration of 
souls, is most characteristic and interesting, for here 

a) (Ev) δύειν- (ἐν) δύεσθαι is taken in its literal meaning ; 

b) It effects a union, a oneness of the possessor and the 
possessed. 

c) The further effect of the (ἐν) δύειν- (ἐν) δύεσθαι is a kind 
of παλινγενεσία, a new mode of life for the possessed. 


Il]. ENAYEIN-ENAYES@AI IN BIBLICAL LITERATURE 


The question now arises whether the same meaning and use 
attach to ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι in the Biblical as in the profane Greek 
literature, and, in any case, whether Paul in his formula followed 
either of these literary currents. Since Paul is known to follow 
his own ways, the meaning of ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι in Biblical literature 


85 


can not of itself prove. decisive for the interpretation of the 
ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν in the Pauline epistles. But, in so far as the 
Biblical Greek writings should agree with the profane Greek 
literature as to the meaning and use of ἐνδύεσθαι, they would seem 
to be a striking illustration and powerful confirmation of the 
results attained from the latter source. 


I. ENAYEIN-ENAYES@AI IN THE LXX 


a) Use of Ἐνδύειν- Ἐνδύεσθαι with an Impersonal Object 


The term occurs more than 110 times in the LXX, and in almost 
every case where it has a Hebrew equivalent it is the rendering of 


one or the other form of the verb wi25, which properly means to 
put on, to clothe.!2° More than 60 times this word is used in its 
literal, naive material sense and is followed by the accusative of 
garment, or in a causative sense with the accusative of person 
and garment or only of person. In all these cases, except three, 


ἐνδύεσθαι is the equivalent of the Hebrew wad. In 2 Kings VI, 14, 
it stands for "3M= to gird, to surround 121 in Lev. VIII, 7, it is 
the translation of 1N3 —to give ;}** while in Ez. XLIV, 17, it is 


the rendering of ΓΙῸΣ —to go up, to ascend,!?* In these three cases, 
ἐνδύεσθαι is merely a free rendering of the Hebrew. 

Besides its frequent use with garment, ἐνδύεσθαι is found four 
times in the LXX in the sense of to put on a breastplate. Like- 
wise here, where it has a Hebrew equivalent, it is the equation of 
259. 

Like the expressions ἐνδύεσθαι χιτῶνα-τεύχεα found in profane 
Greek literature, all these phrases may imply that the person gives 
himself up to the quasi influence of the garment or armor, and 
consequently is changed by and according to it, 1.e., receives from 
it a new outward appearance. 


In some instances in which ἐνδύεσθαι- 5 is used in its literal 
sense with garment as its object, we find garment modified by a 
word that denotes a disposition or quality. Thus, before Judith 
went to the camp of Holofernes, she put off the garments of her 
widowhood and put on the garments of her gladness—éevedvcaro ra 
ἱμάτια τῆς εὐφροσύνης αὐτῆς. There is no Hebrew equivalent for 


120 Cfr. Gesenius, Hebr. u. Aram. Handwérterbuch, 402. 
121 Gesenius, Op. cit., 233. 

122 Gesenius, Op. cit., 522. 

128 Gesenius, Op. cit., 612. 

im Jud. X, 3 Sole Ae τος 


this phrase. In this expression, the symbolic signification of the 
word garment predominates. 

Again, in relating the acts of penance and humiliation Esther 
performed before appearing before the king with her plea in behalf 
of the Jewish people, the text says that, when she had laid aside 
the garments of her glory, she put on the garments of distress 
and grief—éevedvcaro ἱμάτια στενοχωρίας καὶ πένθους..25 Here, too, we 
have no Hebrew equivalent. Although this expression, like the 
preceding, is to be taken literally, still it emphasizes the symbolic 
signification of the garments. 

A similar example is contained in Isaias. Describing the joy 
of the Messias he says: “I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, and 
my soul shall be joyful in my God. For he hath clothed me with 
the garments of salvation and with the robe of justice”—évéduce 
γάρ με ἱμάτιον σωτηρίου καὶ χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης. The Hebrew has: 


"IOS" ΓΙΡῪΣ 5.) SUID "WaT "D_ This phrase is not only 
symbolic, but also metaphorical. By metonomy, the “garments: 
of salvation” here stand for “salvation” itself. It is important to 
note here that to put on the garment of something is the same as 
to put on the thing itself. The active is here used in a causative 
sense. The notion of possession always connected with ἐνδύειν- 
ἐνδύεσθαι has a very interesting meaning here; it emphasizes that 
the being possessed by salvation is the gift of God. It means: 
God has caused me to be possessed by salvation. 

The figurative phrase, to put on the garment of a certain dis- 
position, is less frequently met than the metaphorical expression, 
to put on a disposition as a garment. Thus we find the expres- 
sions: to put on a curse as a garment—évedicaro κατάραν ws 


ἱμάτιον 3177 Hebrew—1109 ΡΣ)» wa"; to put on wisdom as a 
robe of glory—orodny Béens ἐνδύσῃ αὐτὴν 28 to put on justice as a 
long robe of honor—évivey αὐτὸ ὡς ποδήρη δόξης. We also have 
the phrase, to put on justice as a breastplate—évedicaro δικαιοσύνην 
ὡς θώρακα ;**° Hebrew— ye mpi wab". These phrases mean 
to be possessed and dominated by these qualities. This idea is 
consistently expressed in the Greek by the middle. The expres- 
sion “he put on curse as a garment” is further developed in the 


125 Rst. XIV, 2. 

126 Ts. LXI, το. 

127 Ps, CVIII, 18. 

128 Eccli, VI, 32. 

129 Eccli. XX VII, 9. 

130 Ts. LIX, 17, Cfr. also Wisdom V, 10. 


87 


text by the Psalmist, and it is the most plastic and illustrative use 
of ἐνδύεσθαι we have seen so far. The text reads: “And he loved 
the curse, and it shall come unto him: and he would not have 
blessing, and it shall be far from him.” He loved the curse means, 
of course, that he loved evil, which brings the curse, so to say, 
automatically. The text continues, καὶ ἐνεδύσατο κατάραν ws ἱμάτιον 
—“and he put on cursing like a garment,” 1.¢., he became subject 
to its power, “and it went in like water into his entrails, and like 
oil in his bones. May it be unto him like a garment that covereth 
him: and like a girdle with which he is girded continually.” These 
expressions seem to imply that in this figure of a garment is con- 
tained also the idea of the completeness, the totality of the posses- 
sion. This same notion is also suggested by the phrase “long robe 
of honor,” ποδήρη, which completely covers the body. 

Likewise, the text “thou shalt put her (wisdom) on as a robe 
of glory’’'*! is very interesting when considered in the light of its 
context. Wisdom is described as a mighty power that holds and 
controls those who give themselves up to its possession. In Eccli.. 
VI, 25, the inspired writer says, “Put thy feet into her fetters, and 
thy neck into her chains. 26: Bow down thy shoulder, and bear 
her: and be not grieved with her bands. 30: Then (1.e., in the 
latter end) shall her fetters be a strong defense for thee and a 
firm foundation and her chain a robe of glory. 31: For in her is 
the beauty of life: and her bands are a healthful binding.” Here 
then follows our text: στολὴν δόξης ἐνδύσῃ αὐτὴν. This. phrase not 
only means thou shalt pass under her power, but it implies that 
your surrender to her will redound to your own glory. | 

Finally, ἐνδύεσθαι is used figuratively of a disposition or quality. 
Thus, power'*? and strength,'** praise’** and beauty,’*° justice’*® 
and salvation,!*’ likewise confusion!** and shame’*® and sorrow'*® 
are said to be put on. This manner of expression, which logically 
belongs to the more developed stage of the language, is very sim- 
ilar in form and contents to the phrase of Homer δύεσθαι ἀλκὴν and 
to the expressions of the early Christian writers who use ἐνδύεσθαι 


131 Eccli. VI, 32. 

182 Ps. XCII, 1. 

133 Proy, ΧΧΧΙ, 25; Is. ΤΙ, ΠΥ ΤΣ Καὶ Νὴ Σ ΝΣ ὦ 

184 Ps, CIIT, 1 

135 Ps, CXII, τ; Ps, CIIL, 1; Prov. XXXI, 25. 
136 Ps, CXXXI, 9. 

187 2 Para. VI, 41; Ps. CX XXI, 16. 

138 Job VIII, Ἂ Ps, CXXXI, 18. 

189 Ps, XXX V, 26. 

140 Fz. VII, = 


88 


of a disposition. Like these phrases, the figurative expressions in 
the LXX can be most naturally understood as meaning to give 
oneself over to the possession and power of the respective dispo- 
sition or quality, which in turn conforms the subject to it, so that 
the latter can be said to have the quality. 


Another example of 825, which is rather surprising. The 


Hebrew text of Ps. LXIV, 14, reads: (NE OD War— “the 
pastures clothe themselves with the cattle or sheep.” Because 
ὩΣ in its first sense means sheep, the LXX translates this pas- 
sage: Ἐνεδύσαντο οἱ κρίοι τῶν προβάτων =the rams of the flock were 
clothed. This translation is incorrect, for pn is not in the con- 
struct but in the absolute state. The meaning of the Hebrew text 
seems to be: The pastures are possessed by the cattle or sheep. 
But "wa? here implies more than mere possession. This expres- 
sion is probably derived from the figure of a garment and the 
“tertium comparationis” very likely is the totality of the cover- 
ing. The sheep are so numerous that they cover the whole field. 
Here again then the completeness, the totality of the possession 
is emphasized. 


b) Use of Ἐνδύειν- Ἔνδύεσθαι with a Personal Object 


It is of interest to note that in the O. T. e&v8vew-wind is used 
with a personal object. In three of these examples, the Spirit of 
God is said to put on some one. Thus, in Judges VI, 34, we read that 


πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐνέδυσε τὸν Τ᾽εδεών᾽ “᾿ΞΞΞ VSN ἃ mwa a ma, 
This phrase means that the Spirit of the Lord entered into 
Gedeon, took possession of him, and consequently ruled his actions, 
as the context shows. The text continues, “And he sounded the 
trumpet and called together the house of Abiezer, to follow him,” 
etc. These actions are the result of the Spirit’s possession. The 
phrase “the Spirit of the Lord possessed Gedeon” is similar to the 
expressions found in the profane Greek literature, which declare 
that fury, pain, madness, and similar qualities enter man and take 
possession of him. But here the phrase seems to have its literal 
meaning: the Spirit of the Lord literally entered into Gedeon and 
took possession of him. It is important to note, however, that 
this phrase, like the Greek, implies, first, possession and control ; 
second, a change in the possessed.—The aorist active ἐνέδυσε again 
is used to denote the taking possession of man by the Spirit. 


141 A and B have: πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐνεδυνάμωσε τον Τ' εδεών͵ 


89 


Another example. When David, who had fled from Saul, 
doubted in what spirit the men of Benjansn and of Juda came to 
him, the Spirit “put on” Amasai: καὶ πνεῦμα ἐνέδυσε τὸν Apacai'?—= 
ἼΔΩΣ ὨΝὶ Γ39 man}, Here again the I aorist active ἐνέδυσε is 
used and means that the Spirit took possession of Amasai and 
dominated him. The effects of this possession are the words of 
reassurance Amasai spoke to David. 


Finally, when the princes of Juda, who after the death of 
Joiada worshiped idols, would not listen to the prophets that were 
sent to bring them back to the Lord, the Spirit of God put on 
Zacharias: καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐνέδυσε τὸν *ALapiav.**® Also here ἐνέδυσε 
equates the Hebrew mwa> It has the same meaning as in the 
preceding examples. The effects of the possession of Zacharias 
by the Spirit are the words of reproach that the prophet thereupon 
speaks to the princes. 


A confirmation of this interpretation of 25 is found in the 
Syriac, the sister language of the Hebrew. For the first meta- 
phorical meaning of the Syriac equivalent Jebash is to invade, 
occupy, obsess.'** The variant reading of B in the first passage, 
and of A in the first and second passages is not opposed to this 
interpretation. For ἐνδυναμόω---ἰο strengthen, surely implies the 
exercise of a power. 


In Isaias XLIX, 18, we have another example of the use of 
ἐνδύεσθαι with a personal object. The prophet says of Sion: “Lift 
up thy eyes round about and see. And these are gathered to- 
gether, they are come to thee. I live, saith the Lord, that thou 
shalt be clothed with all these as with an ornament”—or πάντας 
αὐτοὺς ὡς κόσμον évdvoy—‘and as a bride thou shalt put them about 
thee” —repiOhoes αὐτούς. For ἐνδύσῃ the Hebrew has the Qal form of 
wa: “waon In this example, the middle is used and==thou 
shalt be possessed by all these ; but the emphasis seems to be on 
the fulness or totality of the possession, which is expressed by wad 
and by the words “all these.” Moreover, the phrase also expresses 
that the possession redounds to the glory of Sion, “as an 
ornament.” 


142} Para, XII, 18. Here A, but not B, renders πῦϑ» by ἐνεδυνάμωσεν. 


148 2 Para. XXIV, 20. In this passage neither A nor B has a different 
reading. 


144 Cfr. Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus, 1879. 


90 
Summary and Valuation 

We may now summarize the results of our Septuagintal in- 
vestigation and compare them with the results obtained from our 
study of the Hellenic writers: 

1. In the LXX, as in the profane Greek literature, the idea 
of possession and power is always connected with ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι. 

2. In the LXX, a strict distinction between the active and the 
middle voice is observed throughout : 

a) The active: ἐνδύειν always==to take possession ; 
Ὁ) The middle :. ἐνδύεσθαι invariably = to become the prop- 
erty of ; to surrender to the control and possession of. The 

II aorist active is never used. 

3. In the profane Greek literature, but not in the LXX, ἐνδύειν- 
ἐνδύεσθαι is used in its primary local meaning, to go into a place. 

4. In both literatures, ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι is used in its literal mean- 
ing with garment or armor as its object. : 

5. In the O. T., however, the symbolic meaning is often in the 
foreground, even when the phrase is taken literally; e.g., Esther 
put on the garments of distress and grief. 

6. When used figuratively in the O. T., ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι often 


emphasizes : 
a) The symbolic element; ¢.g., to put on the garments of 
salvation. 
Ὁ) The totality of possession ; e.g., to put on a curse as a 
garment. 


7. In both the profane Greek literature and the LXX, ἐνδύειν- 
ἐνδύεσθαι is used of various dispositions and qualities, and it implies 
the possession and domination of the person by the disposition. 
But the grammatical structure of the phrase is different in the two 
literatures : 

a) In the earlier Greek writers, the disposition or quality 
is the subject, and évévew is used in the sense to take posses- 
sion of ; | 

-b) Inthe LXX, as in the one phrase of Homer δύεσθαι ἀλκὴν 
and in the early Christian writers, the person is the subject 
and the middle ἐνδύεσθαι is employed, meaning to give oneself 
over to the possession and power of. 

8. In both literatures, ἐνδύεσθαι is used with a personal subject _ 
and object. In the LXX, we have the example: the Spirit of the 
Lord put on some one. Here the active af is used and means: to 
take possession of. In the profane Greek writings, however, espe- 


91 


cially in the κοινή period, the middle ἐνδύεσθαι is used, in this con- 
nection, and means: to surrender to the possession of, to become 
the property of. In the LXX, the phrases here referred to may 
be taken in their literal sense ; whereas in the Greek writings, they 
are undoubtedly metaphorical. 

We see then from this summary that the use of ἐνδύεσθαι in the 
profane Greek writings is noticeably different from that in the 
LXX, and especially that only in the former do we find an exact 
parallel to the formula of Paul ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν. Yet, in both 
‘literatures, the fundamental and essential idea of ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι | 
is the same; it involves possession and dominion, which imply a 
change in the possessed by and according to the possessor. 


2. ENAYEIN-ENAYES@AI IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
a) In non-Pauline Writings 


In the N. T. writers, St. Paul excluded, the word occurs thir- 
teen times. In all these cases, except one, ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι is used 
in its literal meaning with garment as its object. 

St. Luke is the only N. T. writer, besides St. Paul, who uses 
the term in a figurative sense. He thus renders Christ’s last words 
to the Apostles before His Ascension: “And I send the promise 
of my Father upon you”—éyo ἐξαποστέλλω τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός 
pov ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, “stay you in the city” ἕως οὗ ἐνδύσησθε ἐξ ὕψους divapw** 
—which in the light of our investigation means: till you have 
entered into the possession of the power from on high. Already 
the phrase “I send the promise of my Father upon you” includes 
the idea of possession and power, as is evident from the ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς, 
t.e., the Holy Ghost will come over you; He is thought of as the 
power that will take possession of the Apostles. This idea of pos- 
session and power is brought out most forcibly in the following 
words: “But stay you . . . till you have entered under the power 
from on high.” They are commanded to surrender themselves 
to the power that is coming to take possession of them: ἐφ ὑμᾶς. 
If St. Luke had used “Him” instead of “power,” the meaning 
would be the same; but by writing “power” he made the thought 
more emphatic. To explain this phrase further is superfluous. 
Suffice it to say that the δύναμις which we had to supply in the 
passages quoted from Greek literature, is here expressly men- 
tioned. This then is an irrefragable proof for the correctness of 
our interpretation of the examples from the Greek literature. Here 


145 Le, XXIV, 49. 


92 


the use of the middle is to be noted ; it==to become the possession 
of ; to surrender to the possession of. 


b) In Pauline Writings 


Paul uses ἐνδύνειν once in its literal sense. He speaks of evil 
men who enter into houses—oi ἐνδύνοντες εἰς οἰκίας, 5 “and lead 
captive silly women laden with sins.” The ἐνδύνειν seems to imply 
that they entered with violence. 

The middle ἐνδύεσθαι is employed by St. Paul metaphorically 
fourteen times. 

a) Figurative Use of Ἔνδύεσθαι with an Impersonal Object 

In four passages the term occurs in a figure taken from the 
armor of a soldier. He exhorts the soldiers of Christ to put on 
the armor of light—évdvowpeba δὲ τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ pwrds,*** the panoply 
of ἀοά.---ἐνδυσασθετὴν πανοπλίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, and in particular the 
breastplate of justice—évdvodpevor τὸν θώρακα τῆς Sixaroovvys,***® and 
again the breastplate of faith and charity, and for a helmet the 
hope of salvation—évdvodpevo. θώρακα πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης, καὶ 
περικεφαλαίαν ἐλπίδα σωτηρίας." 55 In these phrases in which the sym- ὁ 
bolic element is in the foreground, ἐνδύεσθαι implies possession. 
The only question is: Do the readers take possession of the vari- 
‘ous virtues or do the virtues take possession of the readers, so that 
the latter are. regarded as passing under the possession and power 
of the virtues? In the light of our investigation, we must answer 
that, unless Paul has changed the sense of the middle ἐνδύεσθαι, 
the latter is the meaning. That Paul’s use of ἐνδύεσθαι agrees with 
that of the profane literature and of the LXX, is apparent if we 
ask: Which is the transforming power and who is transformed? 
Evidently the virtues are the superior power, to which the readers 
should submit, and by which consequently they are transformed. 
The very comparison of these virtues with the arms of a soldier 
clearly indicates that Paul conceived them as powers, as means 
of resisting the snares and assaults of satan and as helps for doing 
good. 

Likewise, the origin of these expressions may be of some in- 
terest. They strongly remind us of the Hebrew figures derived 
from the idea of garment. The phrase in Eph. VI, 14, ἐνδυσάμενοι 
τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης, may have been directly suggested by the 


146 2 Tim. III, 6. 
147 Rom. XIII, 12. 
148 Eph, VI, 11. 
149 Eph. VI, 14. 
1501 Thess. V, 8. 


98 


LXX, for it is very similar to the expression found in Wisdom V, 
19: ἐνδύσεται θώρακα δικαιοσύνην, and in Isaias LIX, 17: ἐνεδύσατο 
δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα. But Paul goes further and speaks of passing 
under the possession also of the breastplate of faith and charity 
and in general of the arms of light and the panoply of God.. Al- 
though it is probable that in the use of these phrases Paul had the 
LXX in mind, still we are not warranted to conclude with 
Cremer*® from this one similarity that the O. T. origin of Paul’s 
use of ἐνδύεσθαί in all cases is evident. 

St. Paul, moreover, uses ἐνδύεσθαι with virtues as the object, 
without any reference to arms. In Col. III, 12, he exhorts the 
readers to put on the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, mod- 
esty, patience—Evivcacbe οὖν---σπλάγχνα οἰκτιρμοῦ, χρηστότητα, 
ταπεινοφροσύνην, πραύτητα, μακροθυμίαν. Here again the symbolic 
element, especially in connection with the word σπλάγχνα, suggests 
the Hebrew origin of this phrase. The sense, at any rate, is clear: 
The Colossians should be possessed and transformed by these 
virtues. 

A very striking example of the figurative use of ἐνδύεσθαι is 
found in 1 Cor. XV, 53-54. Explaining the manner of our resur- 
rection, St. Paul says that on the last day “the trumpet shall sound 
and the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we shall be 
changed” (v. 52). He then describes the change by which the 
risen shall be made incorruptible, by the figure of ἐνδύεσθαι. For, 
he says, “This corruptible must put on incorruption; and this 
mortal must put on immortality.” —8e yap τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι 
ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν. The contrasts in 
this example throw the clearest light on the meaning of ἐνδύσασθαι. 
The fundamental idea of property or possession and power is evi-. 
dent. But who is possessed? Clearly the ἀφθαρσία and the ἀθανασία 
are the stronger elements; they are the power that takes posses- 
sion of the weaker elements, the τὸ φθαρτόν and the τὸ θνητόν, and 
change them. The sense then can only be: The corruptible and 
the mortal, i.e., the body, are possesséd and controlled by incor- 
ruptibility and immortality. In consequence of this possession, 
corruptibility and mortality cease to be, and incorruptibility and 
immortality take their place, so that the body which was corruptible 
and mortal (τὸ φθαρτόν-τὸ θνητόν), is now incorruptible and im- 
mortal. Note here again the use of the middle: ἐνδύσασθαι. 


151 Bib.-theol. Worterbuch d. neut. Griic., 377. 


94 


It is also in this sense that Chrysostom explains the figure. 
He pictures this process as a clash between two powers. By St. 
Paul’s phrase “this corruptible and this mortal,” he says, the body 
is meant. Therefore, he concludes, the body remains, for it is the 
τὸ ἐνδυόμενον, one might say the object of possession and conten- 
tion; but mortality and corruption are destroyed and vanish 
(ἀφανίζεται) when immortality and incorruption take possession 
of the body—) δὲ θνητότης καὶ ἡ φθορὰ ἀφανίζεται, ἀθανασίας καὶ 
ἀφθαρσίας ἐπιούσης αὐτῷ.. 5 In consequence of this possession, the 
body itself becomes immortal and incorruptible. Chrysostom con- 
tinues: Therefore doubt no longer how it will live a life without 
end, when you hear that it is made incorruptible—ér ἄφθαρτον 
yiverar.2°* 

St. Paul repeats his figure in verse 54: “And when this cor- 
ruptible hath put on (ἐνδύσηται) incorruption and this mortal hath 
put on (ἐνδύσηται) immortality, then shall come to pass the saying 
that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory”—xarerd6y 6 
θάνατος εἰς νῖκος. Here it is made still clearer which is the domi- 
nating power. Immortality gains the victory over mortality or 
death. The sense evidently is: the body passes under the dominion 
and power of incorruption and immortality. The expression 
xatero@n—is swallowed up, is consumed—shows us the powerful 
effect produced in the body by the possession of incorruption and 
immortality. The latter, not only overcome and expel mortality 
and corruption from the body, but utterly destroy them. As 
Chrysostom says, neither a remnant of it, i.e., corruption, nor the 
hope of its return remains, for incorruption has destroyed cor- 
ruption—ris ἀφθαρσίας τὴν φθορὰν dvadwoaons.’** In this example, 
we, therefore, have a most emphatic use of ἐνδύεσθαι, which sug- 
gests also the completeness, the totality of possession. A similar 
figurative use of ἐνδύεσθαι is found in 2 Cor. V, 2-4. In the first 
verse of this chapter, St. Paul says we know that, if this body is 
dissolved, we shall receive a glorified body, not made by hands, 
but eternal. Therefore, he continues in verse 2, “in this also we 
groan, desiring to be clothed upon (ἐπενδύσασθαι) with our habi- 
tation that is from heaven,” i.e., already in this body we desire to 
be possessed by the glorified body. This meaning is postulated by 
the middle form of the verb. The being possessed by the glorified 
body is curiously described by ἐπενδύσασθαι, which supposes the 


152 Migne, P. G., 61, 365. 
153 [bid. 
δὲ [δὲά. 


95 


having become possessed by something else that has previously 
taken place by an ἐνδύεσθαι. The latter surrender to the possession 
of something else is explained in the next verse: εἴ ye καὶ ἐνδυσάμενοι 
οὐ γυμνοὶ εὑρεθησόμεθα. This verse has been a crux for exegetes 
and has received a great variety of interpretations.’** But in the 
new light of our investigation of ἐνδύεσθαι, it can be satisfactorily 
solved. The ἐνδύεσθαι seems to refer to the possession par excel- 
lence of St. Paul, 1.6., the possession by the new life, the posses- 
sion by Christ. The sense then is: Already in this body, although 
we have become the possession of Christ, we long to be possessed 
by the glorified bodies, 1.6., to be glorified. According to this inter- 
pretation, both the ἐνδύεσθαι and the ἐπενδύεσθαι belong to the super- 
natural order ; the former transforms the soul, the latter the body ; 
the ἐπενδύεσθαι is the natural completion of the ἐνδύεσθαι. The 
ἐνδύεσθαι may be regarded as a technical term which Paul used so 
frequently that his readers here knew what he meant without any 
explicit modification of the term. One who was baptized, then, 
was simply an ἐνδυσάμενος. This will become clearer when we 
come to the other passages where Paul speaks of the ἐνδύεσθαι par 
excellence. | 


B) Figurative Use of Ἐνδύεσθαι with a Personal Object 


Apart from the two renowned passages in Gal. III, 27, and 
Rom. XIII, 14, St. Paul uses ἐνδύεσθαι with a personal object in 
the phrase “to put on the new man.” 

In Eph. IV, 22-24, he says the Ephesians have been taught “to 

put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who is 
corrupted according to the desire of error, and to be renewed in 
the spirit of their mind and to put on the new man, who according 
to God is created in justice and holiness of truth’—«ai ἐνδύσασθαι 
τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ Kal ὁσιότητι τῆς 
ἀληθείας. 
_ The phrase ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον is parallel with Liba- 
nius’s expression ἐνέδυ τὸν σοφιστῆν. But it is here more realistic. 
In both phrases, the object of ἐνδύεσθαι is designated by a generic 
noun which denotes, not a particular individual, but a class of 
persons. In both cases, moreover, possession is implied. 

But who is the possessor, and who the possessed? The words 
of Libanius mean to give oneself up to the possession and power 
of sophism, and consequently to be changed according to the 


155 Cfr. Meyer, 2 Brief an d. Kor., 126. ff. 


96 


object, z.e., to become a sophist. This meaning, as we have seen, 
is clear from the context in which the phrase occurs. 

St. Paul’s words likewise mean, as already the middle indi- 
cates, to give oneself up to the possession and power of the new 
man, to be possessed by the new man, 1.6., the new life, and con- 
sequently to be changed by and according to the object, 1.6., to 
become new men, to become men of the new life. As in the ex- 
ample from Libanius, the military life is replaced by the sophistic 
life, so here the old life is replaced by the new. The difference 
between the two examples is this: The new life to which Firminus 
gives himself up is merely an avocation; the new life, according 
to Paul, however, is not merely an avocation, a profession, but 
something that affects the very essence of the soul. The new man 
to whose possession we should surrender, is described by Paul as 
one “who according to God is created in justice and holiness of 
truth,” i.e., in true justice and holiness. Our new life then is a 
life of justice and holiness. By creating this new man, says 
Chrysostom, God created man a son; but this takes place in Bap- 
tism.—Ytdv εὐθέως, φησὶν, αὐτὸν ἔκτισε" τοῦτο yap ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος 
γίνεται. 55 In these words, Chrysostom describes the grand effect 
(viov—éxrice) and the cause (ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος γίνεται) of this 
ἐνδύεσθαι. } 

The figurative use of ἐνδύεσθαι in Col. III, 10, is very similar 
to its use in Eph. IV, 24; and it must be explained in the same way. 
In an exhortation to the Colossians, Paul says: “But now put you 
also all away : anger, indignation, malice, blasphemy, filthy speech 
out of your mouth; lie not one to another: stripping yourselves of 
the old man with his deeds, and putting on the new, who is re- 
newed unto knowledge, according to the image of him who created 
him”—drexdvodpevor τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ 
ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν νέον τὸν ἀνακαινούμενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ 
κτίσαντος αὐτόν. 

In this passage, Paul distinguishes between the “old man” and 
“his deeds.” By the “old man,” therefore, the principle of the 
old life or simply the old life, must be meant; and by the “new 
man,” the new life. Paul tells us that we should free ourselves 
of the possession and power of the old life and surrender our- 
selves to the possession of the new life. Note that already the 
ἐνδύεσθαι implies the ἐκδύεσθαι; the new life, when it takes posses- 
sion of us, frees us from the dominion of the old; it replaces, 


156 Migne, P. G., 62, οὔ. 


97 


destroys the old. But Paul emphasizes the utter destruction of 
the old life by expressly mentioning first the ἐκδύεσθαι. 

The use of ἐνδύεσθαι with a personal subject and object in the 
phrase to be possessed by the new man, has no parallel in the O. T. 
But it has a perfect parallel in Greek literature, in the words of 
Libanius ; and it bears a great similarity to the examples taken 
from Dionysius Hal. and Eusebius. True, also in the O. T. 


ἐνδύεσθαι- "53. occurs with a personal subject and object and de- 
notes possession ; but, as we have seen, these examples differ from 
those found in Hellenic literature, in the κοινῇ period, and also in 
St. Paul. For in the former examples, the subject takes possession 
of the personal object ; while in the latter, the subject enters into, 
gives himself up to the possession and dominion of the object. In 
the former, the active ἐνδύειν is used; in the latter, the middle 
ἐνδύεσθαι. This shows that Paul derived the use of ἐνδύεσθαι with 
a personal object, not from the O. T., but from the Hellenic 
literature. 

The other two instances in which Paul uses ἐνδύεσθαι are the 
famous passages in Gal. III, 27, and Rom. XIII, 14. We shall 
take these up in our next chapter. 

Our investigation of the other passages in the N. T., especially 
in Paul, where the expression occurs, has yielded the same results 
as to the meaning of the word as we derived from the study of 
the term in the profane Greek literature and, in its main and essen- 
tial idea, also in the LXX. But Paul goes further than even the 
Hellenists inasmuch as he strongly emphasizes the fact that the 
power to which we surrender ourselves wholly replaces and utterly 
destroys its contrary power. 


CHAPTER IV 


APPLICATION OF THE RESULTS TO ROM. XIII, 14, 
AND GAL, III, 27 


Before applying the results of this investigation to the Pauline 
formula, we shall restate them in a summary way. In the first 
chapter we reviewed the various interpretations of the formula 
by exegetes in the Middle Ages and in modern times. Owing to 
the utter confusion concerning the meaning of our phrase, we had 
recourse to the greatest authority on exegesis in the early Greek 
Church, St. John Chrysostom. The study of Chrysostom yielded 
the following results: 


I. ENAYES@AI XPISTON = 


a) to surrender oneself to the possession and dominion of 

Christ, to become His property and possession. 

b) Christ exercises His power over us out of love by 

a) uniting us to Himself most intimately, so that we 
actually possess Christ or He actually dwells in us, and 

8) conforming us to Himself. 

The precise nature of this conformity must be deter- 
mined by the context or circumstances in which the ἐνδύεσθαι 
is used. Therefore, in Rom. XIII, 14, the ἐνδύεσθαι regards 
the conformity to Christ’s virtues; in Gal. III, 27, it re- 
gards the conformity to Christ’s nature. 

2. The ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is to be taken, not figuratively, but 
literally: we actually become Christ’s property and possession, 
and consequently Christ really dwells in us and conforms us to 
Himself. In this reality consists the “horrendum mysterium,” of 
which Chrysostom speaks. 

3. The grand historical fact by which we first become the 
property and possession of Christ is Baptism. 

4. His interpretation of the Pauline formula Chrysostom con- 
firmed by the popular proverb ὁ δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα ἐνεδύσατο and thus 
pointed to the Greek usage of the term ἐνδύεσθαι as the source of the 


98 


99 


ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν and of his explanation of it, thereby giving us a 
touchstone wherewith to test the merits of his interpretation and 
to establish beyond all doubt the meaning of the formula. 

The investigation of the meaning of (ἐν) δύειν- (ἐν) δύεσθαι in 
the Hellenic literature resulted in a powerful confirmation of 
Chrysostom’s interpretation: 

1. The first and fundamental idea connected with (ἐν) dvew- 
(ἐν) δύεσθαι from its first use in Homer to its use in the κοινῇ period, 
is that of possession and dominion. 

2. When used in its naive material sense, the term=—to move 
from one place to another; either the subject that moves is a 
power or the place to which it moves is a place of domination. 

3. In its more developed literal sense, as in its figurative 
meaning, the term expresses: 

a) Possession and dominion, which implies 

b) Union, and effects 

c) Conformity of the possessed to the possessor. The 
precise nature of this conformity is determined by the context 
or the circumstances. 

4. a) The active (ἐν) δύειν, except the IT aorist, generally —to 
take possession and control of. 

Ὁ) The middle (ἐν) δύεσθαι always to: Siciereiel to the 
possession and control of, to become the property of and to be 
dominated by. 

c) The II aorist active may have either meaning; the 
context must decide the meaning in each case. : 
5. In the phrase of Dionysius of Hal. τὸν Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον 

evovopevor,’ we have a strict parallel to the Pauline formula, current 
already before Paul wrote. It means to surrender to the posses- 
sion and power of Tarquin ; to become his property and to be con- 
trolled by him. 

The result is further confirmed by the use of ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι in 
the LXX and the N. T., especially in St. Paul’s writings. Here 
again the fundamental idea connected with the term is possession 
and dominion, which implies a union, and effects a conformity of 
the possessed to the possessor. In the Biblical literature, how- 
ever, the II aorist active is not used, and the active always —to 
take possession and control of ; the middle always to surrender 
to the possession of, to come under the dominion and power of, 
to become the property of. 


1 Ant. Rom. XI, V, 2. 


100 


In the light of these overwhelming proofs there can be no 
doubt about the meaning of the Pauline formula in Rom. XIII, 
14, and Gal. III, 27. There is no possibility of explaining it in 
any other sense than that which the term uniformly has in Hel- 
lenic literature, profane as well as sacred. Both the usage of St. 
Paul, as we have seen, and the context of the phrase, as we have 
noted in Chrysostom’s explanation and as we shall see presently, 
not only favor this interpretation, but demand it. 

The Pauline formula ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν, then, undoubtedly means 
to surrender to the possession and power of Christ, to give our- 
selves up to His power and dominion, so that we become His prop- 
erty and possession and He dominates us. In the parallel to Paul’s 
formula, which we found in Dionysius of Hal. the phrase τὸν 
Ταρκύνιον ἐκεῖνον ἐνδυόμενοι means to give oneself up to the posses- 
sion of Tarquin, to become his property, and to be controlled by 
him ; but this is a figurative expression: the decemvirs are merely 
conceived as being the property and as being controlled by Tar- 
quin. But the words of Paul ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν are not to be taken 
figuratively, but ppigigeee: they express a dread Mae «2 “horren- 
dum mysterium.” 

This, then, is, in brief, the fundamental meaning of ἐνδύεσθαι 
Χριστόν: to surrender ourselves to the actual possession of 
Christ, so that we become actually His property and are actu- 
ally controlled by His power; consequently, Christ really 
dwells in us and actually conforms us to Himself. 

The great historical fact by which the ἐνδύεσθαι is first effected 
is our Baptism into Christ as St. Paul says: ὅσοι yap εἰς Χριστὸν 
ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.Σ In Baptism we commit ourselves, 
our whole being, to Christ ; we surrender ourselves to His posses- 
sion and power; we become His property and possession, which 
He is to rule and dominate. 

Christ, the Son of God, exercises this power by uniting us 
most intimately to Himself, so that He actually and personally 
dwells in us, and by conforming us to Himself. This conformity 
consists in our participation of His μορφή, His nature, our eleva- 
tion to the dignity of sons of God. This is not mere figurative 
language ; it expresses a dread reality, a “horrendum mysterium.” 

But the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is to be perfected by our lives. There- 
fore, Paul exhorts the Romans, who have been already baptized: 
Ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. We should, by our deeds, 


2 Gal. III, 27. 


practically renew our surrender to Christ’s possession and seek to 
do His will, whose property and possession we have become by 
Baptism. If we do this, then, as Chrysostom explains, Christ, 
moved by His love for us, will unite us yet more closely to Himself 
(which expresses again a dread reality, a “horrendum myste- 
rium”) and will effect in us a conformity to His virtues. In 
Baptism, we became other Christs by receiving His μορφῇ; in 
leading good lives, we become other Christs by assimilating His 
virtues. In the one case, we become sons of God by our nature; 
in the other, we become sons of God, as Chrysostom says else- 
where,® by our works. 

In conclusion, we may remark that, since the phrase ἐνδύεσθαί 
twa was current in the Greek literature before St. Paul wrote, all 
the opinions of commentators who would see in the Pauline for- 
mula an allusion to some fact or custom, whether Christian, 
Jewish, or pagan in origin, are unfounded. 


COROLLARY 


Confirmation of the Results by the Meaning of the N. T. 
Formula βαπτίζειν cis τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ 


ἜἘνδύεσθαι Χριστόν, as we have seen, means to become the prop- 
erty and possession of Christ and to be controlled by His power ; 
the ἐνδύεσθαι is first effected in Baptism. 

This result receives confirmation from the investigation of 
another N. T. formula: βαπτίζειν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Τησοῦ. Heitmiller, in 
his excellent study Jm Namen Jesu, with the aid of the inscriptions 
and monuments (ostraca and papyri) representing the conversa- 
tional and business language of the Hellenic world, has proved 
beyond all doubt that in general the formula εἰς ὄνομά τινος ex- 
presses the “Zueignung an eine Person, die Herstellung des 
Verhaltnisses der Zugehorigheit*‘ unter Gebrauch des Namens 
der betr. Person.’’® Ih explanation of one of his examples he says 
that the name is mentioned and “indem der Name genannt wird, 
ist die mystische Verbindung mit der betr. Person vollzogen.’”® 

Βαπτίζ. εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Χριστοῦ means: “taufen unter den Namen 
Christi, Christo zu eigen, in die Zugehorigkeit zu Chr. hinein.”? In 
his summary, he gives the difference between the expression βαπτίζ. 


8 Cfr. Migne, P. G., 60, 594. 
4“Im Namen Jesu,’ 109. 

5 Ibid., 108. 

6 Ibid, 

7 [bid., 116. 


ΡΝ 

ἐν and ἐπὶ τ. ὀνόματι and βαπτίζ. εἰς τὸ ὄνομα. The first two, he says, 
describe the manner in which Baptism takes place; “sie besagen, 
dass das Taufen sich vollzieht unter Nennung des Namens Jesu.” 
The formula βαπτίζ. εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, however, “giebt einen (den) 
Zweck und einen (den) Erfolg des Taufens an: es besagt, dass 
der Taufling in das Verhaltnis der Zugehorigkeit, des Eigentums 
zu Jesus tritt.” But, he adds, the last formula contains also “das 
Moment der Namennennung.® 

It is remarkable that, as our investigation shows, the two im- 
portant N. T. formulas ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν (which is effected by 
Baptism) and βαπτίζεσθαι εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ both mean: to become 
by Baptism the property and possession of Christ and to be con- 
trolled by His power. Here, then, in the work of Heitmiiller, we 
have a powerful confirmation and an excellent test of the correct- 
ness of our interpretation of the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν. 


8 [bid., 127. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Abbott, Lyman, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, New York 
and Chicago, 1888. 

Abbott, T. K., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to 
the Ephesians and the Colossians, New York, 1905. 

Agus, Josephus, 5. J., Epistola Beati Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos, Ratis- 
bonae et Neo Eboraci, 1888. 

Alber, Johannes Nep., Interpretatio Sacrae Scripturae per omnes Veteres 
et Novi Testamenti Libros, Tom. 14 et 15, Pesthini, 1804. 

Alting, Jacobi, Operum, Tom. 4, Amstelaedami, 1686. 

Bardenhewer, Otto, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, Vol. 3, Frei- 
burg, ΤΟ12. 

Bardenhewer, Otto, Patrology, The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the 
Church, Translated from the Second Edition by Thomas J. Shahan, 
Freiburg im Breisgau and St. Louis, Mo., 1908. 

Barnes, Albert, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Epistle to the 
Romans'®, New York, 1871. 

Barnes, Albert, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Second Epistle to 

the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Galatians?, New York, 1872. 

Baxter, Richard, A Paraphrase of the New Testament*, London, 1701. 

Beelen, Joannis Theodori, Commentarius in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos, 
Lovanii, 1854. 

Beet, Joseph Agar, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New 
York, τοι. 

Belsham, Thomas, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle, Vols. 1 and 3, London, 
1822. 

Bengel, John Albert, Gnomon of the New Testament, A New Translation 
by Charlton T. Lewis, and Marvin R. Vincent, Philadelphia, 1861. 
Benseler, Gustav Eduard, Griechisch-deutsches Schul-Worterbuch, Ed. 

Adolph Kaegi!®, Leipzig, 1896. 

Bernardini a Piconio, Epistolarum B. Pauli Apostoli Triplex Expositio, 
Parisiis, 1857. 

Beyschlag, Willibald, New Testament Theology, Translated by Neil 

_ Buchanan, Vol. 22, Edinburgh, 1899. 

Bingham, Joseph, The Works of, Edited by His Lineal Descendant R. 
Bingham, Jun., Vol. 42, Oxford, 1855. 

Binney, Amos, The People’s Commentary, Including Brief Notes on the 
New Testament with an Introduction by Daniel Steele, New York, 
1878. 

Blass, Friederich, Grammar of the New Testament Greek, Translated by 
Henry St. John Thackary, London, 1808. 

103 


104 


Bloomfield, 5. T., Recensio synoptica Annotationis Sacrae, Being a Critical 
Digest of Annotations on the New Testament, Vols. 6 and 7, London, 
1828. 

Bocharti, Samuelis, Opera Omnia, Ed. Joannis Leusden et Petri a Ville- 
mandy, Vol. 13, Lugduni Batavorum, 1602. 

Boise, James Robinson, Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Greek 
Text of Paul's Epistles, Edited by Nathan E. Wood, New York, 18096. 

Borger, Elias Annes, Specimen Hermeneuticum Inaugurale exhibens Inter- 
pretationem Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas, Lugduni Batavorum, 1807. 

Bosanquet, Edwin, A Verbal Paraphrase of St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Romans, London, 1840. 

Bousset, Wilhelm, Der Brief an die Galater?, Gottingen, 1908. (Die Schrif- 
ten des Neuen Testaments, herausgegeben von Johannes Weiss.) 

Brenii, Danielis, Opera Theologica, Amstelaedami, 1666. 

Brown, Francis, 4 Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 
etc., Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius as Translated by 
Edward Robinson, Oxford, 1906. 

Brown, John, Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to 
the Romans, New York, 1857. 

Brunonis, Sancti, Carthusianorum, Opera omnia, Ed. Theodori Petrei, Co- 
loniae, 1711. 

Burkitt, William, Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New 
Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, London, 1716. 

Calmet, Augustini, O. S. B., Commentarius Literalis in Omnes Libros Novi 
Testamenti, Ed. Joannes Dominicus Mansi, Vol. 3, Wirceburgi, 1788. 

Calvin, John, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and 
Ephesians, Translated from the Original Latin by William Pringle, 
Edinburgh, 1854. 

Calvin, John, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the 
Romans, Translated and Edited by John Owen, Edinburgh, 1840. 
Clemen, Carl, Primitive Christianity and its non-Jewish Sources, Trans- 

lated by Robert G. Nisbet, Edinburgh, 1912. 

Clemen, Carl, Die Entwicklung der christlichen Religion innerhalb des 
Neuen Testamentes, Leipzig, 1908. 

Clemen, Carl, Religionsgeschichtliche Erklarung des Neuen Testamentes, 
Giessen, 1909. 

Cook, F. C., The Holy Bible according to the Authorized Version (A. D. 
1611) with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary, etc., Vol. 3, 
Romans to Philemon, New York, 1886. 

Cornelii a Lapide, 5. J., Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram accurate 
recognovit ac notis illustravit Augustinus Crampton, Tom 18, com- 
plectens expositionem litteralem et moralem Divi Pauli Epistolarum, 
Parisiis, 1861. 

Cornely, Rudolfus, 5. J., Commentarius in S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas. 
Epistolae ad Corinthios altera et ad Galatas, Parisiis, 1892. (Cursus 
Scripturae Sacrae.) 

Cremer, Hermann, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentli- 
chen Gracitét®, Gotha, 1902. 


105 


Crocii, Joannis, Commentarius in Omnes Epistolas Pauli Minores tribus 
tomis distinctus, edidit per filium Joannem Georgium Crocium, Mar- 
purgi, 1663. 

Cumont, Franz, The Oriental in Roman Paganism, Translated by Grant 
Showerman, Chicago, 1911. 

Cursi, Carlo M., Jl Nuovo Testamento, Vol. 3, Roma, 1880. 

Damm, Christian Tobias, Novum Lexicon Graecum, Reedited by John M. 
Duncan, Vol. 1, London, 1833. 

Deissmann, Adolf, Paulus, Tiibingen, tort. 

Delitzsch, Franz, A System of Biblical Psychology, Translated from the 
German by Robert Ernest Wallis?, Edinburgh, 1890. 

Denney, James, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, London, 1901. 

De Wette, W. M. L., Kurze Erklarung des Briefes an die Romer*, Leipzig, 
1847. 

De Wette, W. M. L., Kurze Erklirung des Briefes an die Galater und der 
Briefe an die Thessalonicher?, Leipzig, 1845. 

Deylingii, Salomonis, Observationum Sacrarum Pars Tertia Lipsiae, 1715. 

Dieterich, Albrecht, Eine Mithrasliturgie, Leipzig, 1903. 

Doddridge, Philip, The Family Expositor or a Paraphrase and Version of 
the New Testament with Critical Notes, Vols. 4 and 5, London, 1756. 

Dolger, Franz Joseph, IXOTS, Das altchristliche Fischsymbol in religions- 
geschichtlicher Beleuchtung. (Rémische Quartalschrift fiir christliche 
Altertumskunde und fiir Kirchengeschichte, Rom, 1909.) 

D’Outrein, Johannis, Spicilegium, De Induitione Christi ad Loca Rom. 
XIII, 14 et Gal. III, 27. In: Bibliotheca Historico-Philologico-T heo- 
logica, Classis Quartae, Fasciculus Secundus, Bremae, 1720. 

Drummelow, J. R., 4 Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, 
Edited by, New York, 1909. 

Drummond, James, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, 
Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, and Philippians, New York and Lon- 
don, 1903. (International Handbooks to the New Testament, Edited 
by Orello Cone.) 

Du-Hamel, J. B., Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis cum selectis annotationi- 
bus?, Matriti, 1740. 

Ellicott, Charles J.. 4 Commentary, Critical and Grammatical, on Saint 
Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Introductory Notes by Calvin E. Stone, 
Boston, 1860. 

Ellicott, Charles J... 4 New Testament Commentary for English Readers, 
London, 1884. 

Estii, Guilielmi, In Omnes Pauli-Epistolas, item in Catholicas, Commen- 
taru, Ed. Franc. Sausen, Moguntiae, 1843. 

Farrar, F. W., The Life and Work of Saint Paul, London and New York, 
1879. 

Feine, Paul, Theologie des Neuen Testaments?, Leipzig, 1912. 

Findlay, G. G., The Epistle to ce Galatians®, London, 1900. (The Exposi- 
tor’s Bible.) 

Ford, Ὁ. B., Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Philadelphia, 1880. 


ἐἰδηκωρέρπὴ Commentary on the New Testament, Edited by Alvah 
Hovey. ) 


106 


Fritzsche, Car. Frid. Aug., Pauli ad Romanos Epistola, Tom. 2, Halis 
Saxonum, 1830. 

Gatakeri, Thomae, Opera Critica, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1608. 

Gazlay, Sayrs, Comments on Select Passages of the Holy Scriptures, Cin- 
cinnati, 1870. 

Gesenius, Gulielmus, Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae et 
Chaldaeae Veteris Testamenti, Vol. 2, Leipzig, 1839. 

Gesenius, Gulielmus, Hebraisches und aramdisches Handworterbuch iiber 
das Alte Testament, etc., Ed. Frants Buhl!*, Leipzig, 18909. 

Godbey, W. B., Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. V, Atts. Romans ; 
Vol. IV, Corinthian sacoledians. Cincinnati, 1899. 

Godet, F., Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Translated 
from the French by A. Cusin; Translation Revised and anes by 
Talbot W. Chambers, New York, 1889. 

Gray, James Comper, The Biblical Museum: A Collection of Notes, etc., 
Revised by George M. Adams. The New Testament, Vol. 2, Containing 
the Epistles and the Revelation, New York, 1897. 

Grotii, Hugonis, Operum Theologicorum, Tomus Tertius continens Anno- 
tationes in Epistolas Apostolicas et Apocalypsim, Basileae, 1732. 

Gunkel, Hermann, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstindnis des Neuen 
Testaments”, Gottigen, 1910. 

Guyse, John, The Practical Expositor or an Exposition of the New Testa- 
ment, Vol. 3, Containing the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul’s Epistle 
to the Romans*, Edinburgh, 1775. Vol. 4, Containing Paul's Eptstles 
to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians?, Edinburgh, 1775. 

Hammond, H., A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the 
New Testament, London, 1702. 

Hasaei, Theodori, De Baptizatis Christum indutis ad illustrationem loci 
Gal. 111, 27, Exercitatio. In: Bibliotheca Historico-Philologico-T heo- 
logica, Classis Quartae, Fasciculus Sextus (cfr. D’Outrein), Bremae, 
1721. 

Heideggeri, Joh. Henrici, Opus analyticum, Vol. 2, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 
1720. 

Heitmiiller, Wilhelm, “Jm Namen Jesu”. Eine sprach-und religionsge- 
schichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuem Testament, speciell zur alt- 
christlichen Taufe, Gottingen, 1903. 

Henry, Matthew, 4n Exposition of the Old and New Testament, Vol. 9, 
Romans to Revelation, London, 1866. 

Hofmann, J. Chr. K. v., Die Heilige Schrift Neuen Testaments. Dritter 
Theil: Der Brief Pauli an die Romer, Nordlingen, 1868. 

Holden, George, The Christian Expositor, Vol. 2, New Testament, London, 
(no date). 

Holsten, C., Das Evangelium des Paulus, Berlin, 1880. 

Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theolo- 
gie?, Ed. A. Jiilicher und W. Bauer, Tiibingen, 1911. 

Hovey, Alvah, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, Philadelphia, 
1890. (American Commentary on the New Testament.) 

Jacobs, Henry E., Annotations on the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and 
I Corinthians, Chaps. I-VI, New York, 1896. 


107 


Jacobs, Henry E., Spieker, George F., Swenson, Carl A., Annotations on 
the Epistles of Paul to I Corinthians VII-XVI, II Corinthians, and 
‘Galatians, New York, 1897. 


Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., and Brown, D., A Commentary, Critical and | 


Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. 2, New Testament: 
Matthew-Romans, Hartford, 1877. 

Jeremias, Alfred, Babylonisches im Neuem Testament, Leipzig, 1905. 

Joannis Chrysostomi, S., Opera omnia, Ed. J. P. Minge, Parisiis, 1862. 

Jiilicher, Adolph, Der Brief an die Romer, Gottingen, 1908. 

Juncker, Alfred, Die Ethik des Apostels Paulus, Halle a. S., 1904. 

Kypke, Georgii Davidis, Observationes Sacrae in Novi Foederis Libros ex 
Auctoribus Potissimum Graecis et Antiquitatibus, Tom. 2, Acta Apos- 
tolorum, Epistolas et Apocalypsim Complexus, Wratislaviae, 1755. 

Lake, Kirsopp, The Earlier Epistles of Saint Paul, Their Motive and 
Origin”, London, 1914. 

Lambert, John C., The Sacraments of the New Testament, Edinburgh, 
1013. 

Lewin, Thomas, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, London, 1890. 

Liddell, Henry George, and Scott, Robert, A Greek-English Lexicon’, New 
York, 1807. 

Lightfoot, Joannis, Opera Omnia, Vols. 1 et 2, Roterodami, 1686. 

Lightfoot, J. B., Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, London, 1910. 

Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers, Edited and Completed by J. R. 
Harmer, London, 1012. 

Lipsius, R. A., Briefe an die Galater, Romer, Philipper, Freiburg i. B., 1891. 

Luthardt, Chr. Ernst, Der Brief Pauli an die Romer, Nordlingen, 1887. 

Luther, Martin, d Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Ed. 
S. S. Schmucker, Philadelphia, 1872. 

MacEvilly, John, An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul and of the 
Catholic Epistles, Vols. 1 and 2, Dublin, 1898. 

Macknight, James, A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek 
of all the Apostolic Epistles with a Commentary and Wotes, — I 
and 2, London, 1816. 

Melanthonis, Philippi, Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, edidit Carolus 
Gottlieb Bretschneider, Vol. 15, Enarratio Epistolae Pauli ad Romanos, 
Halis Saxonum, 1848. 

Menge-Giithling, Griechisch-deutsches und deutsch-griechisches Worter- 
buch: Teil I. Griechisch-deutsch?, von Hermann Menge, Berlin-Schon- 
berg, 1913. 

Menochii, Joannis Stephani, Commentarii Totius Sacrae Scripturae, etc., 
Tom. 2, Venetiis, 1722. 

Meyer, Heinr. Aug. Wilh., Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch iiber den sider 
des Paulus an die Kemer. Gottingen, 1865. 

Meyer, Heinr. Aug. Wilh., Kritsch-exegetisches Handbuch iiber den 
sweiten Brief an die Καὶ arteihar: Gottingen, 1870. 

Millii, Joannis, Novum Testamentum Graecum, Ed. Ludolphus Kusterus, 
Leipsig, 1746. 

Minge, J. P., Scripturae Sacrae Cursus Completus, ‘Val 24, Parisiis, 1862. 


108 


Moule, H. C. G., The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Cam- 
bridge, 1894. 

Musculi, Dusani Wolfgangi, Jn Epistolam D. Apostoli Pauli ad Romanos 
Commentarit, Basileae, 1555. 

Musculi, Dusani Wolfgangi, Jn Epistolas Apostoli Pauli ad Galatas et 
Ephesios Commentarii, Basileae, 1569. 

Nageli, Theodor, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, Basel, 1904. 

Natalis, Alexander, Commentarius in Omnes Epistolas Sancti Pauli Apos- 
toli et in VII Epistolas Catholicas, Tom. 1, Parisiis, 1768. 

Olshausen, Hermann, Biblical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the 
Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, Translated from 
the German by a Clergyman of the Church of England, Edinburgh, 
1856. 

Olshausen, Hermann, Biblical Commentary on the New Testament: Epistle 
of St. Paul to the Romans, Translated from the German by a Clergy- 
man of the Church of England?, Edinburgh, 1856. 

Paige, Lucius R., A Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 4, Epistle to 
the Romans, Boston, 1857. 

Paige, Lucius R., A Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 6, From the 
Epistle to the Galatians to the Epistle of Jude, Boston, 1870. 

Parker, Joseph, The People’s Bible, Vol. 24, Romans-Galatians, London, 
1898. 

Pape, W., Handwérterbuch der Griechischen Sprache”, Braunschweig, 1871. 

Pfleiderer, Otto, Der Paulinismus: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Urchrist- 
lichen Theologie, Leipzig, 1890. 

Pfleiderer, Otto, Primitive Christianity, Translated by W. Montgomery, and 
Edited by W. D. Morrison, Vol. 1, New York, 1906; Vol. 4, New York, 
IQII. 

Philippi, Friedrich Adolph, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Romans, Translated from the Third Improved and Enlarged Edition 
by J. 5. Banks, Vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1879. 


Philonis, Judaei, Opera Quae Reperiri Potuerunt Omnia, etc., Ed. Thomas 
Mangey, London, 1742. 
. Piscatoris, Joh., Commentarii in Omnes Libros Novi Testamenti?, Her- 
bornae Nasoviorum, 1637. 
Platts, John, A New Self-Interpreting Testament, Vol. 3, London, 1827. 
Poli, Matthaei, Synopsis Criticorum Aliorumque Scripturae Interpretum, 
Vol. 4, Londini, 1676. 
Pool, Matthew, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, New York, 1853. 
Preuschen, Erwin, Vollstindiges griechisch-deutsches Handwéorterbuch zu 
den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der iibrigen urchristlichen 
Literatur, Giessen, 1910. 
Pulpit Commentary, The, Edited by H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, 
New York (no date). 
Ramsay, W. M., 4 Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Galatians, blew York, 1900. 
Ramsay, W. M., St. Paul, the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, New York, 
1896. 


109 


Reitzenstein, R., Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, ihre Grund- 
gedanken und Wirkungen, Leipzig und Berlin, 1910. 

Rendall, Frederic, The Epistle to the Galatians, Vol. 2?, London, 1903. 

Rickaby, Joseph, S. J., Notes on St. Paul: Corinthians, Galatians, Romans?, 
London, 1905. 

Robinson, Thomas, A Suggestive Commentary of St. Paul’s Epistle to the 
Romans, Vol. 2, New York, 1873. 

Rosenmiilleri, Jo. Georgii, Scholia in Novum Testamentum, Tom. 3, Norim- 
bergae, 1829; Tom. 4, Norimbergae, 1830. 

Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur C., A Critical and Exegetical Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, New York, 1906. 

Schaefer, Aloys, Erklirung der zwei Briefe an die Thessalonicher und an 
die Galater, Minster i. W., 1890. 

Schaefer, Aloys, Erklirung des Briefes an die Romer, Minster i. W., 1891. 

Schaff, Philip, A Popular Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3, The 
Epistles of St. Paul, Edinburgh, 1882. 

Schilling, D., Commentarius Exegetico-Philologicus in Hebraismos Novi 
Testamenti, Mechliniae, 1886. 

Schlatter, D. A., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Zweiter Teil: Die 
Lehre der Apostel, Stuttgart, 1910. 

Schleusner, Joh. Fried., Novum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Novum Testa- 
mentum, Vol. 1, London, 1829. 

Schleusner, Joh. Fried., Novus Thesaurus Philologico-Criticus sive Lexicon 
in LXX et Reliquos Interpretes ac Scriptores Apocryphos Veteris Tes- 
tamenti, etc., Lipsiae, 1820. 

Schmidt, Paul Wilhelm, and Holzendorff, Franz von, A Short Protestant 
Commentary on the Books of the New Testament, Translated from 
the Third Edition of the German by Francis Henry Jones, Vol. 2, 
London, 1883. 

Schmoller, Otto, The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, Translated from the 
German by C. C. Starbuck, with Additions by M. B. Riddle, New York, 
1887. (Lange-Schaff, Commentary on Holy Scripture.) 

Schoettgenii, Christiani, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Universum 
Novum Testamentum, etc., Dresdae et Lipsiae, 1743. 

Schumacher, Heinrich, Christus in seiner Préaexistenz und Kenose, nach 
Phil. 2, 5-8, Rom., 1920. 

Schweitzer, Albert, Paul and His Interpreters, A Critical History, Trans- 
lated by W. Montgomery, London, 1012. 

Shedd, William G. T., A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle 
of St. Paul to the Romans, New York, 1893. 

Shook, William R., A Brief Commentary and Lexicon on the New Testa- 
ment, Chicago, Igri. 

Sieffert-Meyer, Der Brief an die Galater®, Gottingen, 1899. (Meyer, Kom- 
mentar δον das Neue Testament.) 

Simar, Hub. Theophil., Die Theologie des heiligen Paulus, Freiburg im 
Breisgau, 1883. | 

Steinmann, Alphons, Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und Galater iiber- 
setzt und erklart, Bonn, 1918. 


110 


Stephani, Henr., Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Annotationes in 
Quibus Ratio Interpretationis Reddatur, 1550. 

Stevens, George Barker, The Theology of the New Testament, New York, 
1905. 

Stock, Christian, Clavis Linguae Sanctae Novi Testamenti, Ed. John Fred. 
Fischer, Leipzig, 1752. 

Stuart, Moses, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Edited and 
Revised by R. D. C. Robbins, Boston, 1859. 

Teeter, Lewis W., The New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, Mount fos 
ris, Illinois, 1894. 

Thayer, Joseph Henry, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 
Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti, Translated, Revised 
and Enlarged+, Edinburgh, 1908. 

Thomae, D. Aquinatis, O. P., Jn Omnes 1). Pauli Apostoli Epistolas Doc- 
tissima Commentaria, Venetiis, 1562. 

Tholuck, Fred. Aug. Gottreu, Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, Translated from the Original German by Robert Menzies, Phila- 
delphia, 1884. 

Tirini, Jacobi, 5. J., Jn Universam S. Scripturam Commentarius, Vols. 4 et 
5, Taurini, 1884. 

Tittmann, John Aug. Henry, Remarks on the Synonyms of the New Testa- 
ment, Vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1837. 

Trollope, M. A., Analecta Theologica: A Critical, Philological, and Exe- 
getical Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 22, London, 1842. 
Turner, Samuel H., Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, New York, 1824. 
Ursini, Johannis Henrici, Analectorum Sacrorum Libri Sex, Vol. 12, 

Francofurti et Marburgi, 1668. 

Usteri, Leonhard, Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater, τι ἀρ 
1833. 

‘Vaughan, C. J., St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans with Notes, London, 1893. 

Vincent, Marvin R., Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 4, New 
York, 1900. 

Vorstii, Conradi, Commentarius in Omnes Epistolas Apostolicas, Harder- 
wici, 1631. 

Vorstii, Johannis, De Hebrismis Novi Testamenti Commentarius sive 
Philologia Sacra qua tum Theologica tum Philologica accedit ejusdem 
de Adagiis N. T. Diatriba, Francofurti et Lipsiae, 1705. 

Wahl, Christ. Abraham, Clavis Novi Testamenti Philologica, Leipzig, 1829. 
Weiss, Bernhard, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Translated 
from the Third Revised Edition by David Eaton, Edinburgh, 1892. 
Weiss, Bernhard, Die paulinischen Briefe und der Hebréerbrief, Leipzig, 

1902. 

Weiss, Bernhard, Der Brief an die Rémer®, Gottingen, 1899. (Meyer, 
Kommentar δον das Neue Testament.) 

Weiss, Johannes, Das Urchristentum, Gottingen, 1914. 

Wernle, Paul, Die Anfinge unserer Religion”, Tiibingen und Leipzig, 1904. 

Wesley, John, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament*, New York, 
1818. 


111 


Wetstenii, Joannis Jacobi, Novum Testamentum Graecum Editionis Re- 
ceptae cum Lectionibus Variantibus Codicum, MSS., etc., necnon Com- 
mentario Pleniore, etc., Tom. 2, Continens Epistolas Pauli, Acta Apos- 
tolorum, Epistolas Canonicas et Apocalypsim, Amstelaedami, 1752. 

Whedon, D. D., Commentary on the New Testament, Vol. 3, Acts-Romans, 
New York, 1871; Vol. 4, J Corinthians-II Timothy, New York, 1875. 

Wieseler, Karl, Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater, Gottingen, 
1850. 

Wolf, Jo. Christophorus, Curae Philologicae et Criticae in X Posteriores S. 
Pauli Epistolas, Vol. 2, Hamburg, 1738. 

Wrede, W., Paul, Translated by Edward Lummis, London, 1907. 

Zahn, Theodor, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rémer?, Leipzig, 1910. 

Zahn, Theodor, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater, Leipzig, 1905. 

Zeller, Eduard, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent- 
wicklung*, Leipzig, 1889. 

Zockler, Otto, Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und der Galaterbrief, 
Nordlingen, 1887. 


hee Re το 
thactyt 


a 
-. 


UNIVERSITAS CATHOLICA AMERICAE 


WASHINGTONI, D. C. 


----. Ὁ 


5. FacuLTAs THEOLOGICA, 1920-1921 


No. 17 


THESES 


DEUS LUX MEA 


THESES 


QUAS 
AD DOCTORATUM 


SACRA THEOLOGIA 


Apud Universitatem Catholicam Americae 


CONSEQUENDUM 
PUBLICE PROPUGNABIT 


LEO J. OHLEYER, O. F. M. 
PROVINCIAE SSmi CORDIS JESU 


S. THEOL. LICENTIATUS 


THESES 


I 
The fundamental idea expressed by ἐνδύειν-ἐνδύεσθαι in the N. T. for- 
mula ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν is possession and dominion. 


II 
The active évivew, except at times in the II aorist, as the historico- 
literary investigation of the term shows, means to take possession of. 


III 
The middle ἐνδύεσθαι, as the same historico-literary study reveals, 
always means to give oneself up to the possession and dominion of. 


IV 
The exegesis of St. John Chrysostom shows that the formula “induere 
Christum” is to be taken, not in a metaphorical, but in a literal sense. 


Vv 
The contention of Bloomfield, that the popular proverb ὁ δεῖνα τὸν δεῖνα 
ἐνεδύσατο is “scarcely apposite” to illustrate the meaning of the Pauline 
formula, can not be maintained in the light of the investigation of ἐνδύεσθαι 
in the Hellenic literature. 
VI 
The currency of the phrase ἐνδύεσθαί τινα in Greek literature is suf- 
ficient proof that St. Paul’s words ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν contain no allusion to 
any custom or fact, whether Christian, Jewish, or pagan in origin. 
VII 
The similarity of the ἐνδύεσθαι Χριστόν, as used by St. Paul in Rom. 
XIII, 14, with the phrase of Seneca “indue magni viri animum,” does not 
prove a dependence of one on the other. 
VIII 
Modern commentators in their manifold theories have completely lost 
sight of the fundamental idea contained in the formula “induere Christum.” 
. +P ES 
The arguments for the three years duration of the public ministry of 
Christ outweigh those advanced in favor of the one year or two years dura- 
tion. 
x 
The similarities between the IV Gospel and the writings of Philo do 
not prove a dependence of St. John on Philo. 
ΧΙ 
John, the Presbyter, who is mentioned by Papias, is most probably 
identical with John, the Apostle. — 


115 


116 


XII 
The theory of Chwolson gives the most satisfactory explanation of the 
date of the Last Supper. 
XIII 
The explanation of Pfleiderer and Wellhausen, according to which 
XXI, 1-19 of St. John’s Gospel is identical with Luke V, 1-11 and merely 
symbolical, is untenable. 
XIV 
The evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to invalidate the testi- 
mony of St. Irenaeus concerning St. John’s sojourn in Ephesus. 


XV 
The ingenious explanation of the Apocalypse by Marosow is refuted 
by the historical testimonies that prove the existence of the Apocalypse 
already in the second century. 
XVI 
St. Paul accepted the word συνείδησις from the Hellenic world but gave 
it a deeper meaning. 
XVII 
As an explanation of the “stimulus carnis” (II Cor. XII, 7) that af- 
flicted St. Paul, both the theory of persecution and that of carnal tempta- 
tion must be rejected. 
XVIII 
The conversion of St. Paul can not be explained as the mere result of 
a natural psychological development, but must be regarded as a miracle. 


XIX 
The discovery of the date of the reign of Aretas IV, ruler of Damascus, 
definitely fixes the date of St. Paul’s conversion between 34 and 37 A. D. 


xx 
The speech of St. Paul on the Areopagus is not, as Norden claims, a 
forgery consisting in an imitation of a set type of speech used by mis- 
-sionaries in the first and second centuries A. D. 


XXI 
A careful study of the character and contents of the Pentateuch reveals 
a uniform plan in its composition so that it must be considered a literary 
unit. 
XXII 
The so-called double narratives in Genesis contain no contradictions, 
nor are they sufficient to disprove the unity of the authorship of this book. 


XXIII 
The arguments amassed by critics to impugn the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch are not of sufficient weight to justify the statement that 
these books have not Moses for their author but have been compiled from 
sources for the most part posterior to the time of Moses. 


XXIV 

The contention that some passages of the Pentateuch show a later than 
a Mosaic origin may be admitted and explained by the fact that the Penta- 
teuch was a living law-book for the Jewish people and thus was perhaps 
open to occasional modifications in minor points. 


117 


XXV 
In the chronology contained in the III and IV Book of Kings and the 
II Book of Paralipomenon, the fraction of a year which marks the begin- 
ning of a reign, and that which marks the end thereof, are recorded each 
as a chronological unit along with the full year-unit of a reign. 


XXVI 
In these Sacred Books the years of the kingdom of Juda are computed 
according to the sacred year, whereas the years of the kingdom of Israel 
are computed according to the civil year. 


XXVII 
For the correct understanding of the chronology of the kings of Juda 
and of Israel we must accept an interregnum, as the Sacred Text implies, 
between Zambri and Amri of Israel and between Achaz and Ezechias of 
Juda. 
XXVIII 
For a harmonious chronology of the times of the kings of Juda and of 
Israel it is essential to accept a coreign of Joram with Josaphat in Juda 
and of Achab with Amri in Israel. 
SKIT 
The coreigns of the kings of Juda and of Israel are entered in the 
Sacred Text chronologically, and are cross-checked on the contemporary 
rival reign, doubly: once at the year of accession of a king as coruler, a 
second time at the year of accession as sole ruler. 


XxX 
The view of some critics that the discourses of Eliu, Job XXXI, 
1-XXXVII, 24 are a later interpolation is untenable from the linguistic as 

well as from the contextual standpoint. 


XXXI 
Regula fidei protestantica neque tuta, neque universalis aut ad con- 
troversias dirimendas apta dici potest. 


XXXII 
Regula fidei catholica est tuta, omnibus obvia, et ad lites componendas 
plane sufficiens. 
XX XIII 
Sola in Ecclesia Romana plene inveniri potest nota apostolicitatis. 


XXXIV 
Ecclesiam suam ita instituit Christus ut semper primatu Petri tam- 
quam visibili centro auctoritatis et unitatis polleret. 


XXXV 
Testis praeclarus est Sanctus Paulus veritatis resurrectionis ex mor- 
tuis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. 
XXXVI 
Progressus dogmatum non in eo consistit ut eis sensus tribuendus sit 
alius ab eo quem intellexit Ecclesia, sed in eo quod uberior et clarior prae- 
beatur eorumdem explicatio. 
XX XVII 
Secundum Concilium Vaticanum “existentia Dei per ea quae facta 
sunt, naturali rationis humanae lumine certo cognosci potest”, et secundum 


118 


juramentum praescriptum contra Modernistarum errores, “etiam demon- 
strari potest”. 
XX XVIII 
Christus nos redemit non tantum doctrina et exemplis, sed specialiter 
morte sua piaculari. 
XXXIX 
Humana Christi natura, quatenus hypostatice Verbo conjuncta, una et 
eadem adoratione cum eodem Verbo est colenda; quare etiam Cor Jesu 
cultu latreutico dignum est. 
: XL 
Beata Maria virgo fuit ante partum, in partu et post partum. 


XLI 

Sacramenta Novae Lagis gratiam conferunt ex opere operato omnibus 
obicem non ponentibus, ideoque falsum est assertum Modernistarum Sacra- 
menta eo tantum spectare, ut in mentem hominis revocent praesentiam 
Creatoris semper beneficam. 

XLII 

Ad validitatem Sacramentorum requiritur intentio vere interna faciendi 

quod facit Ecclesia, ac proinde non sufficit jocosa vel externa intentio. 


XLII 

Validus est Baptismus sive per immersionem, sive per infusionem, sive 
per aspersionem collatus; sed propter rationes congruas in ecclesia Ro- 
mana Baptismus per infusionem est conferendus. 


XLIV 
Communio sub utraque specie singulis fidelibus jure divino non est 
necessaria, ideoque Ecclesia potuit legitime calicis usum laicis interdicere, 
prout de facto propter rationes optimas interdixit. 


XLV - 
I. Qui a media nocte jejunium naturale non servaverit, nequit ad 
sanctissimam Eucharistiam admitti, nisi mortis urgeat periculum, aut ne- 
cessitas impediendi irreverentiam in sacramentum. 

“2. Infirmi tamen qui jam a mense decumbunt sine certa spe ut cito 
convalescant, de prudenti confessarii consilio sanctissimam Eucharistiam 
sumere possunt semel aut bis in hebdomada, etsi aliquam medicinam vel 
aliquid per modum potus antea sumpserint.”—Can, 858. 


“ 


XLVI 
The inherent right of every human being to subsist from the earth’s 
bounty implies the right of access thereto on reasonable grounds. 


XLVII 
The laborer has an inborn right to a living wage; this claim is valid, 
generally speaking, in his present occupation. 


XLVIII 
The employer’s right to interest on his capital is morally inferior to 
the laborer’s right to a living wage. 
XLIX 
Natural justice demands that the remuneration of every adult male 
laborer should be such as to maintain himself and his family in reasonable 
‘and frugal comfort. . 


119 


L 
Under existing conditions, interest-taking does not violate justice. 

LI. 

Can. 13 et 14. 
111 

Can. 91-95. 

LIII 

Can. 96 et 1076. 


LIV 
Can. 97 et 1077. 


LV 
Can. 1078. 


LVI 
St. John Chrysostom is rightly recognized as one of the most brilliant 
representatives of the historico-philological method of biblical interpreta- 
tion, who at the same time does full justice to the hermeneutical principle 
of a mystico-typical sense in Holy Writ. 


LVII 
The exile of St. John Chrysostom, effected by the coalition of the 
Byzantine court with Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, is the tragedy 
of a fearless antagonist of the injustice practised by the State power and 
its allied forces. 
LVIII 
The religious aspect of the Reformation does not adequately explain 
its rapid spread in Germany. 
IKK ink 
Both by his doctrine and by his political activity, Luther increased the 
religious unrest of his day and hindered the progress of the true reform 
movement. 
. LX 
The Knownothing party was not only a political party but primarily 
an anti-Catholic organization, 


BIOGRAPHICAL 


Leo Joseph Ohleyer was born July 31, 1891, in Indianapolis, Indiana. 
His primary studies he pursued at Sacred Heart Parochial School, of the 
same city. In 1905, he entered the Preparatory Seminary at Teutopolis, 
Ill. After completing his novitiate (1910-1911) in the Franciscan Order, 
he devoted two years more to the classical studies at Quincy, Ill. In the 
Franciscan Seminary at West Park, Ohio, he pursued the course in Philoso- 
phy (1913-1915) and in Theology (1915-1918), completing the latter course 
in St. Louis (1918-1919). In 1919, he matriculated at the Catholic Uni- 
versity of America, where he received the S. T. B. and S. T. L. in 1920. 
He is specializing in Holy Scripture and Oriental Languages. ; 


14 DAY USE | a 
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED | + Ν 


LOAN DEPT. a 


This book is due on the last date stamped below, . 4 
ich renewed. Renew 


or on the date to 


Tel. No. 642-3405 


als only: - 


Renewals may be made 4 days prior to date due. 
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 


NQ 


V2919711 3 


UNIV. OF CALIF. BERT. 
| 
τὰ 
9 a 
‘@ 
᾿ General Library 
LD21A-50m-2,'71 Gea ary 
(P2001810)476—-A-82 pst Ft fe ώρας 


$i 
τῆς τς: = 
SSE Tes 

Scitickeaes: eens 


pe sows $s epns ests poses tS tee 


— on 2 Rie = 


